Zetetic Scholar - No 07

Magazine Overview

Title: Zetetic scholar
Issue: No. 7
Date: December 1980
Publisher: Marcello Truzzi
Focus: An Independent Scientific Review of Claims of Anomalies and the Paranormal.

Editorial Stance

The editorial, penned by Marcello Truzzi, emphasizes Zetetic Scholar's commitment to responsible dialogue between proponents and critics, particularly concerning Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs). The journal aims to foster a constructive, heuristic, and 'agnostic' approach to extraordinary claims. The editorial argues that the goal of science is to expand knowledge, not merely to discredit new ideas. It posits that even the falsification of extreme claims can be valuable by revealing how errors are made. The editorial highlights that 'normal' explanations for anomalies often open new questions, citing the plasma explanation for UFOs and the 'Clever Hans' effect in animal communication as examples. Zetetic Scholar advocates for an interdisciplinary approach, viewing valid anomalies as forces for growth and progress.

Articles and Features

Articles

• Scientific Speculations on the Paranormal and the Parasciences by I.J. GOOD: This article likely explores theoretical frameworks and potential scientific avenues for understanding paranormal phenomena and related fields.
• Livestock Mutilations: A National Mystery by RICHARD H. HALL: Hall investigates the phenomenon of livestock mutilations, presenting it as a significant and unresolved mystery within the United States.

Special ZS Bibliographic Features

• The Loch Ness Monster: A Guide to the Literature by HENRY H. BAUER: Bauer provides a comprehensive guide to the existing literature on the Loch Ness Monster, serving as a resource for researchers.
• Bibliography of Bibliographies on Dowsing by GEORGE P. HANSEN: Hansen compiles a bibliography specifically focused on bibliographies related to the practice of dowsing.

New ZS Dialogue: Theories, Hypotheses, and Speculation on the Origins of UFOs

This section features a central piece by J. Richard Greenwell on UFO origins, followed by critical comments from a diverse group of experts, including:

• George O. Abell
• Jerome Clark
• Daniel Cohen
• William R. Corliss
• John S. Derr
• Charles Fair
• Roberto Farabone
• Lucius Farish
• Stanton T. Friedman
• Allan Hendry
• Elaine Hendry
• Richard C. Henry
• J. Allen Hynek
• John A. Keel
• Bruce Maccabee
• Aime Michel
• James W. Mosley
• James E. Oberg
• John Rimmer
• Michael K. Schutz
• Robert Sheaffer
• P.A. Sturrock
• David W. Swift

This extensive dialogue indicates a significant engagement with the UFO phenomenon from various perspectives within the scientific and skeptical communities.

Continuing ZS Dialogues

• Reply to the Commentators on "Pathological Science" by RAY HYMAN: Hyman responds to critiques of his earlier piece on 'Pathological Science'.
• Joseph May replies to Geoffrey Dean re Velikovsky: A response from Joseph May concerning David Velikovsky's theories.
• Laurent Beauregard comments on Ray Hyman's "Pathological Science": Beauregard offers commentary on Hyman's article.
• Ray Hyman replies to Laurent Beauregard: Hyman's rejoinder to Beauregard's comments.
• Bradley Dowden comments on Robert G. Jahn's "Psychic Research": Dowden provides commentary on Jahn's work on psychic research.
• Robert G. Jahn replies to Bradley Dowden: Jahn's response to Dowden's commentary.

Further dialogues include responses from David Morrison regarding Velikovsky's theories, comments on "Remote Viewing" by Solomon E. Feldman, Piet Hein Hoebens, and Evan Harris Walker, with a reply from Edward W. Karnes. Christopher Scott and John Beloff exchange views on "Seven Evidential Experiments" for psi, and Joseph Agassi comments on "Superstition" with remarks from Geoffrey Dean on Astrology. Jon Beckjord also replies regarding Sasquatch "Photos".

Regular Features

• Editorial
• Letters: Featuring correspondence from Sherman Stein & Howard Weiner, C.E.M. Hansel, Mille Peter Rogerson, and I.J. Good.
• Stein and Weiner express a desire for ESP proof but caution against unconvincing experiments.
• C.E.M. Hansel questions the reviewer's comments on his book, asking for specific criticisms.
• Marcello Truzzi replies to Hansel, clarifying the 'Books Briefly Noted' section and the reviewer's anonymity.
• Richard De Mille comments on Paul Thagard's assumptions regarding astrology believers.
• Random Bibliography on the Occult and the Paranormal
• Supplements to Past ZS Bibliographies
• Book Reviews:
• Review of Lutz Müller's "Para Psi und Pseudo: Parapsychologie und die Wissenschaft von der Täuschung" by Piet Hein Hoebens.
• Review of Jacques Vallee's "Messengers of Deception: UFO Contacts and Cults" by J. Richard Greenwell.
• Review of Ronald Story's "Guardians of the Universe?" by Morris Goran.
• Books Briefly Noted
• Errata
• About the Contributors to This Issue

In Memoriam

The issue includes a tribute to James N.C. Webb (1946-1980), a Scottish writer and consulting editor for Zetetic Scholar, who passed away on May 9th. Webb is remembered as a fine scholar and expert on the occult, magic, mysticism, and general history, authoring significant works like "The Flight from Reason" and "The Occult Establishment."

A Plea from the Editor

Marcello Truzzi issues a plea regarding the future of Zetetic Scholar, stating that circulation has not increased enough to cover costs. While publication will continue, future issues may be smaller. He seeks suggestions from readers, noting that achieving 600 regular subscribers would ensure the journal's future. He rejects popularization as a means to increase circulation, as it would compromise the journal's scholarly purpose, and considers raising prices potentially self-defeating. The editor describes the journal as an 'agnostic' publication in need of an 'angel'.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the scientific investigation of anomalous phenomena, including UFOs, livestock mutilations, cryptids (Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot), and parapsychological claims (ESP, Remote Viewing). The editorial stance, as articulated by Marcello Truzzi, champions a rigorous, interdisciplinary, and open-minded scientific approach. It emphasizes critical evaluation, responsible dialogue, and the pursuit of knowledge, even when it challenges existing paradigms. The journal actively engages with both proponents and critics, fostering a space for nuanced discussion rather than outright dismissal. There is a clear concern for the integrity and continuation of scholarly inquiry into these often controversial subjects, as evidenced by the 'Plea from the Editor'. The issue also touches upon the nature of folklore and its relationship to contemporary anomalous claims, suggesting that these phenomena may serve symbolic or expressive functions within society.

This document is a scanned page from a publication featuring an article titled "SCIENTIFIC SPECULATIONS ON THE PARANORMAL AND THE PARASCIENCES" by I.J. GOOD. The page is heavily decorated with ornate borders and includes page numbering at the bottom.

Article: SCIENTIFIC SPECULATIONS ON THE PARANORMAL AND THE PARASCIENCES by I.J. GOOD

I.J. Good begins by distinguishing between spontaneous and non-spontaneous ESP, noting that the latter can be tested experimentally. He critically examines historical experiments, particularly those by S.G. Soal in England during the 1930s and 1940s, which he labels "notorious" due to overwhelming evidence of fraud. Good states that in 1974, he judged the betting probability of non-spontaneous precognitive telepathy to be about 1/5, but now gives odds of 100 to 1 against it, offering a $10,000 bet against genuine strong clairvoyance in half an hour. He points to arguments against the validity of successful parapsychology experiments found in works by Marks & Kamman (1980) and The Skeptical Inquirer, while also mentioning The Zetetic Scholar.

A footnote indicates that the paper was presented at the tenth annual meeting of the Popular Culture Association, jointly with the second annual meeting of the American Culture Association in Detroit, Michigan, on April 16-19, 1980. The specific session was on the Philosophy of Parapsychology, held on April 19th at the Book Cadillac Hotel.

Another footnote mentions that the bet was reduced to $5000 after seeing Targ & Puthoff (1977).

Good continues by discussing the issue of "experimental dissimulation," where psychologists deliberately mislead subjects, likening it to setting a thief to catch a thief. He suggests that parapsychologists may have strong incentives to cheat, citing the example of S.G. Soal potentially obtaining a doctorate through fraudulent results, and similarly alleging fraud in the case of Carlos Castaneda.

He references John Wheeler's (1979) sentiment, "Where there's smoke there's smoke," but emphasizes that parapsychology should not be dismissed outright due to its potential importance if anything is found to be true.

Good then delves into a probabilistic argument regarding ESP. He posits that while past failures rationally decrease the subjective probability of non-spontaneous ESP, it must tend towards a non-zero limit. He explains this using Bayesian arguments, suggesting that even if probabilities for lower numbers of percipients (n<4) are decreased, there might still be obscure individuals (n>9) with such abilities, possibly due to religious reasons for reticence. He notes that J.B. Rhine believed about a fifth of the population could exhibit ESP.

Regarding spontaneous, non-experimental ESP, Good presents an argument to prevent over-credulity. He quotes himself (Good, 1966) on the need to judge quantitative matters when evaluating a reported dream that appears precognitive, including the improbability of the coincidence (p), the number of dream events (d), the number of waking events (w), and the size of the group from which the person was selected (g). The product dwg must be much less than 1/p. He illustrates with hypothetical figures to warn against gullibility, noting that this argument doesn't even account for fraud or memory tricks.

Good suggests that if a newspaper published dreams, one could verify spontaneous precognition by checking for predictions of events not under human control. He acknowledges the difficulty in measuring the magnitude of coincidences.

He questions whether any spontaneous ESP cases can overcome stringent criteria and wonders why, if there's good evidence, there isn't overwhelming evidence. He poses the idea that paranormal phenomena might be miracles intended to encourage religion, revealing themselves indirectly or being "shy." He argues that faith should not be forced, and miracles would only be convincing to those already close to belief.

Good then considers the possibility that paranormal phenomena are "shy," making scientific evidence impossible and relegating them to faith, which can be exploited by charlatans. He lists Jim Jones, Ron Hubbard, and the Reverend Moon as examples of those who exploit faith, leading to negative consequences like holy wars and witch-hunting.

He states that if the paranormal belongs solely to religion, its observations will remain suggestive but inconclusive. He suggests that every quasiscience might be a quasireligion, and parapsychology could be both.

Good shares a personal experience from 1956 where he found a mathematical theorem solving a statistical problem by randomly selecting a periodical in a library. He estimates the probability of this event at about 10-11, which prevented him from being dogmatically against religion and quasireligion.

He notes the claim that telepathy, clairvoyance, and precognition often occur in situations of great emotional significance, which are difficult to replicate in controlled experiments. He suggests offering potential percipients immense rewards or punishments to create such situations, even mentioning Idi Amin as someone who could have organized such experiments.

Good argues that if ESP had great survival value, it should have been improved by natural selection, questioning why most people don't have marked ESP powers. He counters James S. Hayes' suggestion that we suppress these powers by arguing that we would use them selectively if they were physically possible.

He proposes that the most obvious physical hypothesis for telepathy is electromagnetic radiation, similar to how the brain emits radiation detected by an EEG. He also mentions the extreme sensitivity of human senses. He notes that Russian parapsychologists claim success in telepathic hypnotism even with shielded electromagnetic fields.

Good conjectures that the telepathic field might be the Schrödinger wave function (psi), referencing the EPR paradox. He quotes Zweifel (1974) on the concept of entangled particles and mentions Eugene Wigner's proposal involving the experimenter's consciousness.

He finds the possibility of a telepathic field of a new kind more probable with the recognition of new physical fields of force (strong and weak interactions), suggesting a fifth field connected with consciousness. However, he notes that the Nobel Prize awarded to Weinberg and Salam for unifying weak and electromagnetic interactions somewhat weakened this argument.

Good finds Stephen Weinberg's (1967) work unintelligible and notes that many physicists find it difficult to explain consciousness from a non-behavioral perspective. He contrasts this with modern psychologists who are confident in explaining consciousness, calling them dogmatic.

He describes consciousness as a great mystery, finding the notion that it is merely an aspect of behavior absurd. He uses a limerick about a faith-healer to illustrate the point that while pain might not be real, the experience of it is.

Good states that the mystery of consciousness is the strongest argument for belief in religion, but acknowledges strong arguments against God.

He then discusses further speculations on religious and parascientific indications of science, based on his earlier article "And Good saw that it was God(d)". He quotes H.L. Mencken on science being anti-intellectual and demanding objective fact, contrasting this with his own speculative approach, which he equates to thinking.

He discusses the antagonism between science and religion historically, and the modern tenet of their independence. His theme is that science might offer indications of religion, particularly if "parascience" is included. He suggests that if telepathy is possible, we might all be part of a single consciousness, a religious concept reminiscent of Jung's Collective Unconscious.

Good clarifies that his indications are not proofs and might not be accepted by most scientists. He addresses the Special Theory of Relativity, stating that while no signal can travel faster than light, the theory might allow for time travel in principle, especially in the context of black holes. He mentions the concept of tachyons and a claimed detection in 1974, though unconfirmed.

He links the possible existence of tachyons to precognition being consistent with physics theories, referencing the "whispering gallery theory" of precognition.

Good then presents a "theological implication of telepathic precognition," referencing his earlier work. He notes that with Soal's results now considered fraudulent, precognition is less probable. He discusses the likelihood of other planetary systems and life evolving elsewhere, suggesting that ultra-intelligent entities or machines might exist, potentially communicating via perfected telepathy. He introduces the concept of "Godd" as an integrated immortal consciousness, a collective consciousness of ultra-intelligent entities within a galaxy.

He mentions Stanley Kubrick's interest in this idea and Stapledon's "star maker." He notes that his "Godd" concept is unlikely to exist if precognition is improbable. He also briefly touches upon cosmological theories like the Steady State theory and his own "Black Hole Hierarchical Universes" theory (BHHU), suggesting that a new universe might be created when a black hole forms.

Good discusses Stapledon's speculation about infinite universes connected by telepathy and contrasts it with his BHHU theory. He considers how a "Godd" associated with a galaxy might avoid annihilation in a black hole.

He then invokes quantum mechanics, discussing the idea of a state vector for the whole universe and the role of an observer. He questions whether the universe would develop deterministically unless God makes an observation. He references Wigner's view on solipsism and the idea that all minds might be part of a single system, leading to a polytheism with a countably infinite number of gods.

Appendix A discusses Jung and Astrology. Edgar Wind recounts a conversation with Jung in the 1930s where Jung explained that he calculated his own horoscope to learn about himself and recommended it to his patients. Jung clarified that he meant horoscopes were schematic tools, like coffee grounds, for arousing imagination, not for predicting future events. Wind notes that Jung would not have admitted this to his patients.

A footnote clarifies that the "countable infinity of Godds" should not be confused with other discussions of infinity, and that Alepho is the symbol for countable infinity.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The article exhibits a highly speculative and critical stance towards paranormal phenomena, particularly ESP. While I.J. Good acknowledges the possibility of ESP, he rigorously scrutinizes the evidence, emphasizing the prevalence of fraud and the need for stringent scientific criteria. He employs probabilistic reasoning and draws upon physics and cosmology to explore potential explanations, even if remote. A recurring theme is the relationship between consciousness, science, and religion, with Good suggesting that the mystery of consciousness might be the strongest argument for religious belief. The article also touches upon the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics and cosmology, exploring concepts like collective consciousness and the nature of the universe. The author's approach is analytical and skeptical, yet open to exploring unconventional ideas, as evidenced by his personal anecdote and his engagement with various scientific and philosophical concepts.

This document appears to be an excerpt from a publication, likely a magazine or journal, focusing on topics at the intersection of science, parapsychology, and philosophy. The content is dense with theoretical discussions, referencing numerous scientific and philosophical concepts and their proponents. The issue delves into the validity of astrology, the intricacies of quantum mechanics, and the speculative 'Branching Universe Theory'.

Astrology and Scientific Validity The author begins by discussing a psychoanalyst who used horoscopes, noting that while the psychoanalyst believed in their cathartic effect, the author finds ordinary astrology "extremely unlikely to be valid." The author acknowledges that the season of birth might have some effect on personality, possibly due to biological clocks or magnetic storms, but suggests that the influence of planets within zodiacs should be negligible after accounting for these factors. This approach is described as "partialling out" in statistics. The author also touches upon the "Mars effect," referencing the work of Gauquelin, which found correlations between the birth times of athletes and the position of Mars. While acknowledging the statistical significance of these findings, the author expresses skepticism, suggesting that further analysis and consideration of prior probabilities are necessary.

Quantum Mechanics and the Observer Effect The text then shifts to an explanation of elementary features of quantum mechanics, particularly focusing on the role of the observer. It describes how a physical system's state is represented by a vector in an abstract space, which evolves deterministically according to Schrödinger's equation. However, when an observer makes a measurement, the state vector suddenly changes discontinuously, a phenomenon known as the "collapse of the state vector." The author notes that this aspect is stranger than science fiction and introduces the concept of a second observer (02) viewing the first observer (0) and the system (S) as a combined entity. This leads to the paradox where 02 sees the state vector evolving continuously, implying that 0 split into multiple persons when making the observation. Three resolutions to this paradox are presented: giving up the idea that the state vector describes reality, proposing that quantum mechanics does not apply to conscious beings (Wigner's resolution), or the Branching Universe theory.

The Branching Universe Theory A significant portion of the document is dedicated to the Branching Universe Theory, also known as the Many Worlds Theory. This theory posits that the universe is continually branching into countless distinct universes, with no communication between them. The author explains that at each branch-point, an individual splits into identical twins. This theory is presented as a potential explanation for the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, suggesting that the probability of an event is proportional to the number of branches along which it occurs. The theory is also discussed in the context of time travel, suggesting that changing the past would lead to a different branch of the present, thus avoiding paradoxes. The author finds this theory to be a "bizarre world view" but potentially the "most satisfying answer yet advanced."

Implications and Speculations The Branching Universe Theory is further explored for its implications on mortality, suggesting that survival might occur along some branches even in life-threatening situations. This could lead to individuals benefiting from future medical advances and potentially becoming "ultra-intelligent" and part of "Godd." The author also touches upon the "Whispering Gallery Hypothesis for Precognition," which suggests telepathic signals could travel around a spherical universe and return to the sender, potentially enabling precognitive experiences if the signal travels slightly faster than light.

ESP and Evolution An appendix addresses the question of why better ESP (Extra-Sensory Perception) has not evolved. It references the suggestion that societal emphasis on analytical thinking suppresses the intuitive ESP powers of the right hemisphere of the brain.

References The document includes an extensive list of references, citing numerous works in physics, philosophy, parapsychology, and science fiction, indicating the interdisciplinary nature of the content. Key figures referenced include I.J. Good (the likely author), Bryce S. DeWitt, Hugh J. Everett III, and various other scientists and thinkers.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance The recurring themes in this document are the exploration of the boundaries between science and speculative theories, the nature of reality, consciousness, and the interpretation of phenomena that lie outside conventional scientific understanding. The author adopts a critical yet open-minded stance, rigorously analyzing theoretical frameworks while acknowledging their potential to challenge established paradigms. There is a clear interest in the philosophical implications of scientific theories, particularly quantum mechanics and cosmology, and their potential connections to parapsychological phenomena.

This document is a scanned page from a magazine, featuring a bibliography of works related to parapsychology and the Loch Ness Monster, followed by a detailed article titled "THE LOCH NESS MONSTER: A Guide To The Literature" by Henry H. Bauer. The page also includes a "COMMUNICATIONS REQUESTED" section seeking research assistance for a study on the use of "psychics" in criminal and general police investigations.

Bibliography

The first section of the scanned page presents a comprehensive bibliography of books and articles, primarily from the late 1970s and early 1980s, covering topics such as ESP, parapsychology, astrology, probability theory, psychology of the psychic, and quantum mechanics. Notable authors and works include C.E.M. Hansel's "ESP and Parapsychology," David Marks & Richard Kammann's "The Psychology of the Psychic," and J.G. Taylor & E. Balanovsi's article "Is there any scientific explanation of the paranormal?"

THE LOCH NESS MONSTER: A Guide To The Literature

Introduction and Author's Stance

Henry H. Bauer's article addresses the generally unsatisfactory nature of literature dealing with anomalies, specifically applying this to the voluminous material concerning the Loch Ness "Monster." His aim is to distinguish the reliable from the unreliable and to indicate where the best evidence can be found. Bauer openly states his preconception: a firm belief that Loch Ness harbors a population of animals related to no known extant species. This belief solidified in the early 1970s after years of interest and literature gathering. He has visited Loch Ness multiple times but has never seen the animals himself. He notes that while these animals might exist, there are excellent reasons why they should not, and it is difficult to categorize them as fish, eels, amphibians, invertebrates, reptiles, or mammals.

The Photographic Evidence (Chronological)

Bauer meticulously lists and analyzes photographic and film evidence of the Loch Ness Monster, providing chronological details and references to the books where they are published:

• Gray, 1933: A massive shape with a thin "neck" or "tail," poorly contrasted against the water. Considered genuine, though a sketch is only of the shadow.
• Irvine, 1933: Stills from a lost moving film showing a dark shape in the water, with little motion.
• Surgeon, 1934: The most famous image, showing a tapering neck and head. Universally accepted as showing "Nessie," though Mackal suggests it might be a bird.
• Second Surgeon's photograph (1950s): A print from a lost negative, inferior in quality but of unquestioned provenance. The angle differs from the 1934 photo.
• Mountain, 1934: Five photographs, four showing wakes, one an indistinct hump with spray. A lost film still shows a "head" and a "fin."
• Adams/Lee, 1934: Details unknown, considered doubtful. Shows a rounded silhouette with water disturbance.
• Irvine, 1936: Stills from another lost film, suggesting a mechanical model. Shows water disturbance and dark shapes.
• Taylor, 1938: Movie still showing large and small black lumps, indistinct. Described as lifelike but inanimate.
• Stuart, 1951: Three large, angular humps with no water movement. Universally accepted as genuine.
• MacNab, 1955: Long black hump with a shorter one behind and a "neck" shadow. Widely accepted, though Mackal notes discrepancies.
• Dinsdale, 1960: Famous 16mm movie of a hump with a heavy wake, moving at about 10 mph. Universally acknowledged as genuine, with estimates of size and speed.
• O'Connor, 1960: Flashlighted hump and tubular neck; controversial. Dinsdale accepts it, Mackal rejects it.
• Cockrell, 1960: A low hump and a small black object, possibly a log.
• Lowrie, 1960: Large, long wake on smooth water, suggesting a large object just below the surface.
• Searle, 1972: Numerous newspaper photos, some faked, others potentially genuine.
• Rines/Edgerton "flipper", 1972: Underwater image of a diamond-shaped fin attached to a large object.
• Rines "body-neck", 1975: Underwater image showing a body, appendages, and a long neck with a head.
• Rines "gargoyle", 1975: Underwater image of a bizarre "head" with an open mouth and possible antennae or horns.

BOOKS (Chronological)

Bauer then reviews significant books on the Loch Ness Monster, offering critical assessments:

1. Rupert T. Gould, The Loch Ness Monster and Others (1934/1969): Classic and recommended. Contains eyewitness reports and photos. Gould concluded Nessie is a land-locked sea-serpent, possibly a single creature, though the modern notion is of a breeding population.
2. Constance Whyte, More Than a Legend (1957): Also classic, recommended, and reliable. Gathers eyewitness reports and discusses folklore and sea-serpents.
3. Tim Dinsdale, Loch Ness Monster (1961, 1972, 1976): Chiefly a personal account of Dinsdale's awakening interest and filming attempts. Later editions update the information.
4. Maurice Burton, The Elusive Monster (1961): Criticized as a "sad and infuriating book." Burton, a zoologist, is accused of ludicrously specious argumentation, misquotation, and innuendo to dismiss sightings, attributing most to natural phenomena like vegetable mats or birds, though he suggests a land-based creature.
5. Tim Dinsdale, The Leviathans (1966): Covers "water monsters" worldwide and events at Loch Ness between 1961-1965.
* Monster Hunt (1972): A revised edition of "The Leviathans."
6. F. W. Holiday, The Great Orm of Loch Ness (1969): A "mixed bag." Praised for its treatment of skeptics like Burton but includes bizarre tales of secret movies and Holiday's theory that Nessies are invertebrates.
7. E. D. Baumann, The Loch Ness Monster (1972): Considered "poor" and likely intended for young readers, lacking references and containing inaccuracies.
8. Elizabeth Montgomery Campbell with David Solomon, The Search for Morag (1972): Focuses on creatures in Loch Morar, described as an important and reliable book with eyewitness reports and a review of earlier works.
9. Tim Dinsdale, The Story of the Loch Ness Monster (1973): For younger readers, reliable, with a good bibliography.
10. F. W. Holiday, The Dragon and the Disc (1973): Labeled as "far-flung speculation" and not recommended, mixing Nessies with UFOs and ancient wisdom.
11. Peter Costello, In Search of Lake Monsters (1974): Good for references and data but "incredibly inaccurate in innumerable details" with "laughable attempts to see similarities" between photos. Assertions are idiosyncratic and bizarre.
12. Nicholas Witchell, The Loch Ness Story (1974, 1975): Highly recommended as reliable, comprehensive, and concise, with good illustrations and photos.
* Penguin edition (1975): A shortened version of the 1974 edition.
12A. Tim Dinsdale, Project Water Horse (1975): Recommended for aficionados, focusing on the search and searchers, with a collection of ingenious attempts and devices.
13. Roy P. Mackal, The Monsters of Loch Ness (1976): A valuable collection of data with over 250 sightings, but marred by a "self-serving tone" and "laborious discussions." Described as dull and boring.
14. Frank Searle, Nessie (1976): To be treated as a "curiosity only." Searle is regarded by knowledgeable persons as a faker of photographs. The book lacks references and is considered unreliable.
15. Jeanne Bendick, The Mystery of the Loch Ness Monster (1976): For youngsters, very reliable.
16. Dennis Meredith, The Search at Loch Ness (1977): A well-written account of the controversy surrounding Rines' photographs and the 1976 expedition, useful for sociologists of science.
17. William Akins, The Loch Ness Monster (1977): Written as a "potboiler," reasonably accurate within its genre, but adds little to earlier books.
18. Alan Landsburg, In Search of Myths and Monsters (1977): More "potboiling." The Loch Ness section is considered "not bad," but the book as a whole cannot be recommended.
19. James Cornell, The Monster of Loch Ness (1977): "Worse potboiling," reads for young readers, with an incomplete bibliography and assertions that are simply wrong.
20. Ellen Rabinovich, The Loch Ness Monster (1979): For young readers, "scandalously unreliable" and a disgrace to the publishers, with inaccurate descriptions and misspellings.

Bauer notes that he cannot assess a Danish book due to language familiarity but mentions it contains the only published print of a still claimed to be from Captain Fraser's 1934 movie.

COMMUNICATIONS REQUESTED

A research study is being undertaken into the use of "psychics" in criminal and general police investigations. Information and research assistance are welcomed from those able to aid. Contact Dr. M. Truzzi or Dr. R. Westrum at the Department of Sociology, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Michigan 48197.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the critical evaluation of evidence, particularly photographic, related to the Loch Ness Monster. The author, Henry H. Bauer, adopts a stance of cautious belief in the existence of unknown animals in Loch Ness, while rigorously dissecting the reliability of various sources. He emphasizes the need for critical judgment when assessing claims and highlights the shortcomings of many published accounts and photographs. The editorial stance, as presented by Bauer, is one of seeking verifiable evidence and distinguishing it from speculation, hoaxes, or misinterpretations, even while acknowledging the inherent fascination of the subject. The bibliography and book reviews serve to guide readers toward more credible resources and away from unreliable ones.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, identified as Issue 1, focuses on two primary areas of investigation: the phenomena of sea serpents and the Loch Ness Monster, and the perplexing mystery of livestock mutilations. The content is primarily textual, consisting of bibliographical entries and analytical articles.

References: Loch Ness and Sea Serpents

The issue begins with a section dedicated to "OTHER REFERENCES," detailing various works related to the Loch Ness Monster and other aquatic creatures. These references are curated to include works that are either unusually significant or not readily available.

Loch Ness

Several entries focus on Loch Ness:

• A. C. Oudemans, *The Loch Ness Animal* (1934): A polemic against disbelievers, reiterating the author's thesis that sea serpents are pinnipeds (seals). It refers to reports but has nothing specific to Loch Ness.
• Proc. Linnean Soc. London (1934): A discussion following a film showing, where consensus was lacking regarding the identity of the creature, with suggestions including a seal, otter, or neither.
• *Underwater Search at Loch Ness* (1972) by Klein, Rines, Dinsdale, and Foster: Describes sonar and underwater-photography experiments from 1970-1971 and the history of the Academy of Applied Science, providing background for later successes.
• Victor Perera, *The Loch Ness Monster Watchers* (1974): An essay based on a visit, offering personal impressions rather than facts or references.
• Nature, 258 (1975): Sir Peter Scott and Dr. Robert H. Rines propose the scientific name *Nessiteras rhombopteryx* for the Loch Ness Monster to enable its protection under the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act.
• Robert H. Rines, Charles W. Wyckoff, Harold E. Edgerton, and Martin Klein, *Technology Review* (1976): Presents photographic facts, including underwater photos of 1972 and 1975, enhanced to show body-neck and head details.
• Nigel Sitwell, *Wildlife* (1976): Duplicates information from previous references but also shows original 1972 photos before enhancement.
• Roger Grimshaw and Paul Lester, *The Meaning of the Loch Ness Monster* (1976): Explores the symbolic significance of the monster across different cultures and eras.
• NIS (Ness Information Service) Nessletter: Described as the only current attempt to provide continuing coverage of Loch Ness events, though it "cannot be recommended."

Chiefly about lakes in other countries

This section broadens the scope to include other lake monsters:

• Charles E. Brown, *Sea Serpents: Wisconsin Occurrences of these Weird Water Monsters* (1942): Repeats local tales and fables without specific references.
• F. M. Buckland, *Ogopogo's Vigil*: Covers the history of the Okanagan region and Ogopogo, the water-monster.
• Dorothy Hewlett Gellatly, *A Bit of Okanagan History* (1958): Chapter IV discusses Ogopogo legends and sightings.
• Mary Moon, *Ogopogo* (1977): Provides detailed accounts of sightings and a chronological summary of legends, but the published photograph is identified as a wave phenomenon.
• Elizabeth Skjelsvik, *Folkelivsgransking* (1960): Discusses folklore about lake and sea serpents, suggesting Norwegian lake monster reports date from the 16th century and were numerous in the 19th century, possibly linked to the expansion of the timber industry.
• Knut Svedjeland, *Storsjoodjuret* (1959): Describes reports of large animals in Lake Storsjon, Sweden, generally appearing as a "chain of barrels" between 9 to 14 meters long.

Sea Serpents

This subsection focuses on sea serpent literature:

• Bernard Heuvelmans, *In the Wake of the Sea Serpents* (1968): Described as a classic, comprehensive, and indispensable work.
• Rupert T. Gould, *The Case for the Sea-Serpent* (1930): Praised for its objective data extraction from eyewitness testimony using common sense and critical analysis.
• A. C. Oudemans, *The Great Sea-Serpent* (1892): Considered of historical interest only, containing a chronological list of literature, discussion of hoaxes, and detailed conclusions on size, shape, skin, colors, senses, and nutrition, with 82 illustrations.

LIVESTOCK MUTILATIONS: A National Mystery

The second major section of the issue delves into the phenomenon of livestock mutilations, authored by Richard H. Hall.

The Mystery Defined

The article describes the typical scenario: a rancher finds a prize animal dead, with specific sexual organs or other parts neatly excised, often with no tracks, signs of struggle, or blood. While some cases are explainable by predators, the article argues this is inadequate for the entire mystery, particularly in the Great Plains region.

Striking Features and Investigations

Key features include alleged surgical precision and the absence of blood. The article mentions a 1978 incident in northwest Arkansas where the work was described as "highly skilled" and done "with a knife." It also details hearings held in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in April 1979, concerning a wave of mutilations in northern New Mexico. The State of New Mexico hired an FBI agent to conduct an investigation.

Explaining the Phenomenon

The article notes that, similar to the UFO mystery, false alarms inflate the issue. While predators can mutilate dead animals, certain cases strain this explanation due to the animal's known health, lack of cause of death, and unusual circumstances. The author points out that popular writers have linked these events to "mystery helicopters" and UFOs, but investigators have also considered cultist activity due to bizarre, ritualistic elements.

Pilot Study and Findings

The author conducted a pilot study using files from the International Fortean Organization (INFO), which chronicles recurring events ignored by science. The study analyzed newspaper reports from 1974-1978, identifying 50 specific cases and two generalized series involving 78 mutilated animals across 9 states. The animals included cattle, horses, dogs, and a bison.

#### The Great Plains Circle

A significant finding was the identification of the "Great Plains Circle," a 350-mile radius centered near Clinton, Oklahoma, within which 87% of the mutilations occurred.

#### Case Examples

Several specific cases are detailed:

• Malcolm, Nebraska (September 29, 1974): A steer found shot, throat slit, dragged, and set afire, described by the owner as "set up in a sort of ritualistic manner."
• Sulphur Springs, Texas (January 1975): A pregnant cow found split open, with its unborn calf and womb removed, and its head missing. A similar case in Jackson County, Missouri, involved an unborn calf removed with a sharp instrument and no blood.
• Alberta, Canada (1979): Reports of cattle mutilations, with sexual organs removed, attributed by police to a possible satanic or religious cult.
• Kiowa, Colorado (September 1975): A heifer found dead with its rectum removed by a "perfect, smooth circle."
• Benton, Arkansas (April 3, 1978): Two dogs found dead with internal organs removed, arranged in stick triangles, described as a possible ritualistic slaying.
• Espanola, New Mexico (November 26, 1978): Two cows found with rectums, sex organs, and tails removed, with no tracks, blood, or signs of struggle, suggesting the blood was drained before mutilation.

Mutilation Theories and Conclusions

The article discusses various theories:

• Conclusion No. 1: Human mutilators are involved. While cattle rustlers are a possibility, rumors of unmarked helicopters suggest other motives like intimidation. However, evidence for "mystery helicopters" and UFOs is weak.
• Conclusion No. 2: Sacrificial cults (possibly Satanists and witches) are responsible for some, if not all, of the clear-cut mutilations by human hand. This theory is supported by ritualistic elements and expert opinions linking the mutilations to occult groups.
• Conclusion No. 3: Persons with surgical skill and medical knowledge are involved over a wide area of the United States. The "precision cutting" and descriptions of incisions suggest professional or highly skilled perpetrators.
• Conclusion No. 4: The scope of the phenomenon--conservatively about 400 cases in 5 years--and the similarity of patterns over a wide geographical area suggest organized, purposeful activity. The article suggests a widespread sacrificial cult, possibly equipped with helicopters, which would have sinister implications.

The article concludes that while attitudes range from "predators did it" to "UFOs are responsible," the truth likely lies in between. A larger-scale study focusing on puzzling cases and involving veterinarians is recommended. The existence of a widespread sacrificial cult is strongly suspected.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the enduring mystery of unexplained phenomena, specifically aquatic cryptids like the Loch Ness Monster and sea serpents, and the disturbing enigma of livestock mutilations. The editorial stance appears to be one of critical inquiry, presenting various sources and theories while encouraging further investigation and skepticism towards simplistic explanations. The article on livestock mutilations, in particular, leans towards a rational, evidence-based approach, systematically debunking predator theories for the most perplexing cases and strongly suggesting human involvement, likely through organized cult activity, as the most plausible explanation for the core incidents.

This issue of the magazine, identified by page number 49 and 51-58, focuses on two primary topics: animal mutilation cases and various theories regarding the origins of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs).

Animal Mutilation Cases, 1974-1978

The magazine presents statistical data on animal mutilations, specifically focusing on cattle and livestock farms in several U.S. states between 1974 and 1978. A table details the number of mutilation cases by year and state, with Texas, Arkansas, New Mexico, Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, Virginia, and Oregon listed. The data shows a total of 78 cases reported during this period, with the highest numbers in 1975 (20 cases) and 1978 (41 cases).

A detailed list of specific animal mutilation cases from 1974 to 1978 is provided, including the date, location (county and state), animal type (cow, calf, bull, steer, horse, bison), and the specific body parts affected (ear, eye, tongue, rectum, sex organs, tail, udder). Notes indicate additional details such as "surgical" incisions, blood drained, "cultism," and black animals. Several newspaper sources are cited for these cases, indicating a wide range of reporting across different states and dates.

Two specific incidents are highlighted with more narrative detail: one in Manakin, Virginia, involving nine cows mutilated in a 3-week period in 1978, with reports of unidentified lights in the sky. Another incident in Elsberry, Missouri, in late June 1978, describes five cow mutilations with specific circular cuts and mentions blinking lights and speculation about aliens.

Theories, Hypotheses, and Speculations on the Origins of UFOs

Authored by J. Richard Greenwell, this section explores numerous hypotheses attempting to explain UFO phenomena. These are broadly categorized into conventional explanations (Identified Flying Objects - IFOs) and unconventional explanations (involving purposeful intelligence).

Conventional Explanations (IFOs)

These include mundane explanations such as aircraft, balloons, birds, planets, ball lightning, swamp gas, insect swarms, hoaxes, and hallucinations.

Unconventional Explanations (Theories/Speculations)

Eight major "theories" are presented and assessed:

1. The Secret Weapon Theory: This theory, popular in the 1950s, suggests advanced technological flying devices built by governments. The article critiques this by noting the timing of UFO reports post-WWII, the lack of operational "saucers" despite massive military spending, and the security implications of such a secret.
2. The Hollow Earth Theory: Popularized by Ray Palmer and Dr. Raymond Bernard, this theory posits a hollow Earth with openings at the poles, inhabited by a secret civilization. The article dismisses this based on geological data from Dr. John S. Derr, satellite observations, and the lack of evidence from polar expeditions.
3. The Underwater Civilization Theory: This theory speculates that UFO bases are located on ocean beds, and that UFOs (or Unidentified Submarine Objects - USOs) use water bodies for access. Ivan T. Sanderson is cited as a proponent. While acknowledging that vehicles capable of interstellar flight could withstand oceanic pressures, the article questions why operators would go to such lengths to avoid detection only to appear in populated areas.
4. The Space Animal Theory: Initially considered by the U.S. Air Force's Project Sign, this theory suggests UFOs are living organisms. Kenneth Arnold and Ivan T. Sanderson are mentioned as proponents. The article finds this theory improbable due to the harsh conditions of space (radiation, lack of oxygen) for biological evolution, though it acknowledges the possibility of life in a plasma state as speculative.
5. The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH): This is presented as the most popular theory, assuming advanced civilizations from outer space are observing Earth. The main challenge discussed is the vastness of space and time required for interstellar travel. The article argues that while the existence of advanced civilizations is probable, the "volume of traffic" implied by UFO reports is difficult for many scientists to accept.
6. The Time Travel Theory: This theory suggests future humans will develop the technology to manipulate time and space. Hints for this theory are found in descriptions of UFO occupants who avoid contact, suggesting a non-interference policy with the past. The morphological component of neotony (retained infantile features) in occupants is also mentioned.
7. The Ultraterrestrial Theory: Emerging in the late 1960s, this theory proposes "ultraterrestrials" from a "parallel universe" or different "vibratory level." John A. Keel and Dr. Jacques Vallee are associated with this concept, which suggests UFOs are manifestations tailored to human understanding. The article notes this theory lacks empirical evidence and an "observational window" for evaluation, unlike the ETH.
8. The Psychic Projection Theory: Developed in the mid-1970s by Jerome Clark and Loren Coleman, this theory, based on Carl Jung's collective unconscious, suggests UFOs are psychic projections of material forms. It posits that the collective unconscious, repressed by modern science, may manifest as UFOs, leading to societal disruption. The theory relies on the reality of Jung's collective unconscious and extrasensory perception (ESP), which the article notes have not been empirically demonstrated.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the persistent mystery surrounding animal mutilations and UFO phenomena, with a strong emphasis on exploring various speculative explanations. The editorial stance appears to be one of critical analysis, presenting each theory with its supporting arguments and significant criticisms. The article acknowledges the intrigue of UFOs but remains grounded in the lack of definitive proof for most unconventional theories, particularly highlighting the challenges in empirically verifying concepts like the Hollow Earth, Ultraterrestrial, and Psychic Projection theories. The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis is treated as a reasonable, though unproven, possibility, with the primary debate centering on the feasibility of interstellar travel and visitation frequency.

This document appears to be a section from a publication, likely a magazine or journal, focused on UFOlogy. It includes a list of references for UFO-related literature and critical commentaries on various hypotheses concerning the nature and origin of UFOs. The primary content consists of critical analyses by George O. Abell and Jerome Clark, who express significant skepticism towards the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH) as an explanation for UFO phenomena.

References The document begins with a list of references, primarily books and articles published between 1958 and 1976, covering topics such as "Fireflies and Flying Saucers," "The Hollow Earth," "The Unidentified," "Mysterious Fires and Lights," and "UFOs: Operation Trojan Horse." This suggests a background in existing UFO literature.

Critical Commentaries

Comments by George O. Abell: George O. Abell reviews J. Richard Greenwell's list of UFO hypotheses and offers additional ideas. He discusses several theories, including:

• The Gaea Theory: Proposes that Earth, reacting to pollution, emits radioactive particles that manifest as UFOs.
• Heisenberg Uncertainty Theory: Suggests UFOs could be mini-quasars whose positions are uncertain, allowing them to appear in Earth's atmosphere.
• Negative Atomic Number Theory: Hypothesizes the existence of elements with negative atomic numbers, forming luminous "negative matter" that could be UFOs.
• The Bullphornium Theory: Suggests UFOs are energy released from the annihilation of hypothetical Bullphornium particles.
• The Gravitational Lens Theory: Posits that UFOs are images of remote objects (like quasars) focused by tiny black holes acting as gravitational lenses.
• Kirlian Aura Theory: Suggests UFOs are actually Kirlian auras from small insects or objects.
• The Horon Theory: Proposes that UFOs are luminous phenomena resulting from the interaction of hypothetical "horons" exchanged between planets.
• The Id Theory: Suggests UFOs are manifestations of our ids, deriving psychic energy from "hemispheric palpitations."

Abell notes that many of these hypotheses are presented "tongue-in-cheek" but acknowledges that they can sound plausible due to scientific jargon. He criticizes the public's tendency to accept unverified claims, comparing it to the "scientific establishment" narrative often used by proponents of fringe ideas. Abell emphasizes that while many scientists are open to the possibility of extraterrestrial life, they require strong evidence for the ETH, which he finds lacking. He argues that the debate is about interpreting UFOs, not about the likelihood of life elsewhere. He estimates that even with a million civilizations in our galaxy, the odds of being visited are very low, perhaps one visit every 10,000 years.

Comments by Jerome Clark: Jerome Clark also expresses skepticism about most UFO theories, finding them either "dumb" or "pedestrian." He critiques Jacques Vallee's "Control System hypothesis" and the "planetary poltergeist" idea, which he co-authored. Clark finds the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) to be the "best bet among the 'unconventional' UFO theories," but notes that its proponents often anthropomorphize alien visitors. He suggests that UFO reports are often driven by a desire for novelty rather than a need for objective explanation. Clark argues that while the idea of UFOs might be interesting, it doesn't touch deeply responsive psychological, mystical, or religious chords in most people. He concludes that UFOs appear to be an objective, independent phenomenon, but their existence doesn't necessitate an extraterrestrial origin.

Discussion on Interstellar Travel and Scientific Search

Both commentators touch upon the immense challenges of interstellar travel. Abell calculates that even traveling at near light speed, reaching the nearest civilization would take thousands of years, and the energy requirements are astronomical, involving the complete annihilation of matter and antimatter. He highlights that current technology and understanding make such travel highly improbable in the near future.

Abell also discusses the scientific search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI), mentioning projects like Project Cyclops, which utilize radio telescopes. He expresses hope that such large-scale surveys will eventually yield results, even if they don't confirm UFOs as alien craft. He advocates for pursuing these scientifically grounded projects rather than relying on "shoddy evidence, hearsay, and wishful thinking."

Clark, while acknowledging the possibility of PK effects creating UFO phenomena, dismisses forcing these into a Jungian framework. He suggests that human beings use their imagination to combat boredom, but this doesn't necessarily imply a deep, unconscious impulse to populate the heavens with flying objects.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance The recurring themes in this document are the critical evaluation of UFO hypotheses, the skepticism towards the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH) as the primary explanation for UFOs, and the emphasis on the need for rigorous scientific evidence. The commentators, while acknowledging the possibility of extraterrestrial life, argue that current UFO phenomena do not meet the standard of proof required by the scientific community. The editorial stance appears to favor a cautious, evidence-based approach, distinguishing between the plausible existence of alien life and the unproven claims about UFO visitations. The document implicitly critiques the tendency within ufology to accept speculative theories without sufficient empirical support.

This document is a collection of comments from various individuals on J. Richard Greenwell's paper, which apparently summarized UFO theories. The comments, presented as a series of distinct contributions, offer critiques, additions, and alternative perspectives on the theories discussed by Greenwell.

Comments by Daniel Cohen Cohen begins by noting that flying saucer contactee religions may have fewer adherents than spiritualism. He then addresses the "small stuff" regarding Greenwell's piece. He traces the hollow earth theory's popularity to John Cleves Symmes and its link to flying saucers to Ray Palmer, who had previously explored the concept in "Amazing Stories." Cohen suspects that "Dr. Raymond Bernard" was actually Ray Palmer, as no one seems to have met the real Bernard, and their writings were similar. Cohen doubts Greenwell's arguments will convince hollow earthers, who believe Admiral Byrd discovered a hole in the pole and that the government is covering it up. He also discusses Ivan Sanderson's "space animal theory" from his book "Uninvited Visitors," noting its lack of popularity, and Sanderson's later theory about UFOs originating from an undersea civilization, which gained a wider audience. Cohen shares a favorite Sanderson quote about this undersea civilization being "overcivilized and quite mad" with technology allowing them to "live anywhere or everywhere, and move about instantly, or faster, anywhere throughout space and/or time."

Comments by John S. Derr Derr, writing from the perspective of a physical scientist, finds Greenwell's summary of "theories, hypotheses, and speculations" to be a well-met goal for a short summary. He believes Greenwell has been fair, though those with vested interests might disagree. Derr suggests downgrading the hollow earth theory to a "wild idea" and focusing instead on extraterrestrial, time travel, ultraterrestrial, and psychic projection theories, though he doesn't expect significant progress from them. He recommends steering attention toward Michael Persinger's ideas on transient geophysical phenomena, which he sees as having great merit. Derr argues that Greenwell places these ideas into the "conventional category" unfairly, as they are hardly conventional despite being based on physical and behavioral science. He believes this geophysical/behavioral model could explain many sightings and close encounters, and separating these cases might shed light on "unconventional" explanations. However, he notes that the Persinger model requires validation and is currently an "imaginative possibility."

Comments by Charles Fair Fair states that none of the eight UFO theories reviewed by Greenwell are taken seriously by anyone acquainted with science. He dismisses the Hollow Earth Theory as an update of older nonsense, referencing Cotton Mather and Halley. The "Secret Weapon Theory" is deemed implausible and paranoid, given the superpowers' actual missile capabilities. Fair questions why pilots of hovercraft, which he believes cause radar flaps, haven't been shot down. He highlights the lack of evidence for UFOs, noting that despite potential origins from ocean depths, space, or other dimensions, no craft has ever crashed or had a mid-air collision. The "Underwater Theory" faces difficulties regarding propulsion for flying machines or organisms. Fair references his book "The New Nonsense," where he reviewed astronomical arguments against interstellar visits, citing the vast cosmic distances and the improbability of synchronous evolution and life-expectancy of advanced civilizations.

Comments by William R. Corliss Corliss offers two main points. First, he argues that UFO theorists treat UFOs as an isolated phenomenon, failing to acknowledge that they are part of a broad spectrum of anomalies. He suggests that anomalies range from those near contemporary science (like transient lunar phenomena) to those far from it (like UFOs, sea serpents, and ESP), with thousands of others in between. Corliss believes every phenomenon has some anomalistic content, and it's a matter of examining the "wild points" and "fine structure." Second, he criticizes the UFO literature for not admitting that similar, disturbing anomalies exist across all disciplines. He notes that researchers focused on specific anomalies (like ESP or Bigfoot) often fail to acknowledge other anomalies, even those from different fields like Creationism or Ancient Astronauts. Corliss uses the example of live toads found in solid rocks to illustrate how people can be "anomaly snobs" and dismiss evidence that doesn't fit their preconceived notions. He concludes by asking if understanding the UFO phenomenon requires recognizing it as part of an indivisible spectrum of other anomalies.

Comments by John S. Derr Derr, a physical scientist, finds Greenwell's summary of UFO theories to be a good short summary. He feels Greenwell has been fair. Derr suggests downgrading the hollow earth theory and focusing on extraterrestrial, time travel, ultraterrestrial, and psychic projection. He believes Persinger's ideas on transient geophysical phenomena are more promising and should not be categorized as conventional. Derr suggests that this model could explain many sightings and close encounters, and separating these cases might highlight the merit of "unconventional" explanations, though validation is needed.

Comments by Charles Fair Fair dismisses all eight UFO theories reviewed by Greenwell as not seriously considered by anyone with a scientific background. He calls the Hollow Earth Theory an update of old nonsense and the "Secret Weapon Theory" implausible and paranoid. Fair questions the lack of evidence, such as crashed UFOs, given the supposed traffic. He finds the Underwater Theory problematic regarding propulsion and notes that ocean exploration has not found fast-moving life. Fair references his book "The New Nonsense," which discussed astronomical arguments against interstellar visits, highlighting the vast distances and improbable synchronicity of civilizations.

Comments by John S. Derr Derr, a physical scientist, finds Greenwell's summary of UFO theories to be a good short summary. He feels Greenwell has been fair. Derr suggests downgrading the hollow earth theory and focusing on extraterrestrial, time travel, ultraterrestrial, and psychic projection. He believes Persinger's ideas on transient geophysical phenomena are more promising and should not be categorized as conventional. Derr suggests that this model could explain many sightings and close encounters, and separating these cases might highlight the merit of "unconventional" explanations, though validation is needed.

Comments by Charles Fair Fair dismisses all eight UFO theories reviewed by Greenwell as not seriously considered by anyone with a scientific background. He calls the Hollow Earth Theory an update of old nonsense and the "Secret Weapon Theory" implausible and paranoid. Fair questions the lack of evidence, such as crashed UFOs, given the supposed traffic. He finds the Underwater Theory problematic regarding propulsion and notes that ocean exploration has not found fast-moving life. Fair references his book "The New Nonsense," which discussed astronomical arguments against interstellar visits, highlighting the vast distances and improbable synchronicity of civilizations.

Comments by Roberto Farabone Farabone found Greenwell's paper interesting and well-described. However, he questions why ufology continues to rely on non-orthodox methods. He argues that as the topic gains consideration in science, the approach must change. Farabone believes that while many in academia dismiss these studies, the fight must be on their field. He criticizes the field for generating numerous "a priori" hypotheses without adequately clarifying research bases or seeking homogeneous data. He also notes a lack of adherence to scientific method, specifically the principle of not explaining the unknown with the undemonstrable.

Comments by Lucius Farish Farish agrees with Greenwell's summary of leading UFO theories. He finds the Hollow Earth Theory to have "numerous holes" but acknowledges interest in older literature, noting that Admiral Byrd's statements have been distorted. Regarding the Space Animal Theory, Farish believes it should not be discarded, though it may explain only a small percentage of reports. He points out that Dr. Carl Jung considered this concept, referring to UFOs as "Wesenheiten" (beings or entities) in his original German work, a term translated as "objects" or "phenomena" in English. Jung considered UFOs as "real material entities of an unknown nature" potentially from outer space.

Comments by Stanton T. Friedman Friedman argues that Greenwell's article is flawed by its inadequate treatment of the Extraterrestrial (ET) hypothesis. He asserts that the ET origin of SOME UFOs is deducible from data, citing reports of objects with definite size, shape, and peculiar flight behavior as evidence of manufacture elsewhere. Friedman dismisses the relevance of average interstellar distances, arguing that technological development can overcome vast distances. He suggests that if UFOs do not originate in our solar system, the probability of bases on planets or satellites, including Earth, should be considered. Friedman also discusses the "Ultraterrestrial Theory," agreeing it "lacks a cohesive synthesis" and is often filled with inaccuracies in its treatments by authors like John Keel. He finds the "Psychic Projection Theory" unproven and weak. Friedman contends that the volume of traffic is a "red herring" and that governments would not reveal crashed saucer evidence due to military implications. He believes the available evidence indicates "beyond a reasonable doubt" that SOME flying saucers are ET in origin. He also suggests that aliens might monitor Earth due to humanity's tribal warfare tendencies and our impending capability for interstellar travel.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance The recurring theme throughout these comments is the need for a more rigorous, scientific approach to the study of UFO phenomena. Many commentators express skepticism towards existing theories, highlighting a lack of concrete evidence, reliance on speculation, and a tendency to isolate UFOs from broader scientific inquiry. There is a clear editorial stance favoring critical analysis, adherence to scientific methodology, and a cautious approach to extraordinary claims, while acknowledging the persistence and complexity of the UFO phenomenon.

This document comprises a series of comments and references related to the study of UFOs, likely from a publication focused on the topic. The content critically examines various theories and methodologies within ufology, highlighting the challenges of applying scientific rigor to the subject. The issue features contributions from Allan Hendry, Elaine Hendry, Richard C. Henry, J. Allen Hynek, John A. Keel, Bruce Maccabee, Paul McCarthy, and Aime Michel, alongside references to other publications and authors.

Comments by Allan Hendry

Allan Hendry begins by describing the field of study concerned with collecting anecdotal accounts of unusual, glowing aerial objects. These descriptions vary widely in shape and motion, from hovering to rapid disappearance. Some reports link these sightings to burns and damaged artifacts, and some objects have been photographed. Hendry points out the obstacles to scientific research: the phenomena are transient, cannot be brought into a laboratory, and researchers rely solely on human testimony. He cites James Oberg's concerns about the lack of data verification, theory testing, and burden of proof, which leads many scientists to doubt the existence of these anomalies. Hendry humorously reveals that the subject under study is "BALL LIGHTNING," but emphasizes that the problems in formulating theories for such phenomena are significant.

Hendry notes that UFO reports are shared with other fields, leading to similar frustrating results. He contrasts this with ball lightning, which is uniform enough to be studied scientifically. He criticizes the collective "UFO" label for encompassing too many disparate phenomena, making single explanations difficult. Hendry's own study of hundreds of "UFO" reports suggests that many are actually "IFOs" (Identified Flying Objects) where people routinely enhance descriptions to fit "flying saucer" concepts. He concludes that improving UFO theories requires either a change in how the phenomenon reveals itself or a change in investigative methods.

Comments by Elaine Hendry

Elaine Hendry argues that UFOlogists' obsession with UFO theories hinders progress. She questions the wisdom of summarizing various theoretical camps, suggesting a more fundamental problem exists. Citing Sherlock Holmes, she states, "It is a capital mistake to theorize in the absence of data." While acknowledging the existence of data in UFOlogy, she questions its quality. Human testimony is the foundation, but instrumental UFO incidents are infrequent and ambiguous. Hendry observes a "hopeless diversity" in witness descriptions of UFO behaviors and appearances, making categorization difficult. She suggests that any change in theory production must come from either the phenomenon itself or from improved investigative methods.

Hendry elaborates on the difficulty of theorizing without sufficient data. She notes that the scientific method requires repeatability, which is problematic for UFO data. She proposes two possibilities: either the scientific method is at fault, or the phenomenon is deliberately introducing confusion. She leans towards the data itself being the issue, stating that the fault lies with the data. She also touches upon the possibility of the UFO phenomenon being consciously aware and manipulative, referencing Jacques Vallee's control system hypothesis, but notes this lacks proof and relies on wishful thinking. She advocates for organized, conventional application of the scientific method. Hendry also discusses the emphasis UFOlogists place on witness sincerity, contrasting it with the emotional context surrounding UFO beliefs. She warns against the uncritical acceptance of testimony, especially from those with potential psychological needs or a lack of training in evaluating such experiences. She cautions that amateurs, while valuable for data collection, may misinterpret data due to emotional needs or adherence to pet theories.

Comments by Richard C. Henry

Richard C. Henry reviews Greenwell's summary of UFO theories involving "purposeful intelligence." He categorizes these into intelligence less than our own ("space animals"), equal to our own ("secret weapon," "psychic projection"), and greater than our own. He notes that phenomena like influenza being caused by "space animals" are tractable if UFOs are indeed space animals. The "secret weapon" theory and the idea of government cover-ups are dismissed as unlikely due to the passage of time. "Psychic projections" raise questions about self-understanding. Henry finds theories involving intelligences far greater than our own to be the most intellectually interesting, posing the question of how the less intelligent can understand the more intelligent. He quotes Arthur C. Clarke, stating that "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." He explores the possibility of advanced civilizations interacting with us, referencing the "hollow earth" theory and Admiral Byrd's expedition. Henry concludes that while UFO reports exist, they do not currently provide sufficient evidence to generate significant scientific interest in higher intelligences.

Comments by J. Allen Hynek

J. Allen Hynek discusses the work of astronomer Henry Norris Russell, who meticulously compiled facts about the solar system for theories of its origin. Hynek notes that despite Russell's efforts, the origin of the solar system remains largely unknown. He argues that ufology needs a similar "Russell tabulation" of established UFO facts. He points out that this requires answering fundamental questions like whether cars actually stop when UFOs appear or if skin burns are a direct result of UFO encounters. Hynek stresses that adequate funding is needed for professional, full-time attention to gather such data, as amateur investigations are insufficient. He states that while cars may get stopped by UFOs and scorched rings produced, this is not enough; we need to know definitively if these events occur and be able to prove it. Until then, UFO theory discussions remain academic, and comparisons of theories are difficult. He suggests that some theories, like the "Hollow Earth" theory, can be dismissed because they contradict established science (celestial mechanics and seismology), while others, like time travel, require separate proof.

Hynek also addresses the "Ultraterrestrial Theory" (other dimensions, parallel realities), noting it has some support from alleged evidence of the psychic realm. He acknowledges that this theory offers a mechanism for explaining weird aspects of the UFO phenomenon, such as dematerialization and reappearance, and "poltergeist-like" actions. However, he cautions that Greenwell's paper might imply that a "UFO Russell list" is readily available, which is not the case. He emphasizes that the reality of reported UFO phenomena, such as occupants abducting humans, is not yet established. Hynek concludes by stating his personal belief that the probability of the answer to the fundamental question of UFOs being "yes" (implying a real phenomenon) is high, but stresses the need for a "kitchen-tested Russell tabulation" of UFO properties, as firmly established as astronomical facts.

Comments by John A. Keel

John A. Keel dismisses the article as outdated and obsolete, criticizing hardcore UFOlogists for remaining stuck in past concepts and unaware of recent advances. He labels critics like Oberg, Cohen, and Klass as ignorant armchair critics who waste time arguing with "ding-a-lings." Keel believes that publishing such "trivia" perpetuates nonsense.

Comments by Bruce Maccabee

Bruce Maccabee finds Greenwell's article good in its recitation of "theories" or "speculations" about the nature of UFO phenomena. He defines UFOs in the "Hynekian" sense: a phenomenon described in a detailed report by a credible witness that remains unidentified after extensive investigation. Maccabee believes there is insufficient evidence to select among theories, though some, like "hollow earth," seem remote. He leans towards the extraterrestrial theory because some reports describe objects that appear to be machines capable of traversing our atmosphere, which would exclude natural phenomena. However, he acknowledges that a new, unintelligent natural phenomenon cannot be ruled out.

Comments by Paul McCarthy

Paul McCarthy praises Greenwell's paper for its excellent presentation of eight unconventional hypotheses explaining UFO sightings, noting his knowledge of the literature and concern for historical aspects. McCarthy agrees that the assessment of each hypothesis's likelihood is concise and raises basic objections. However, he quibbles with the paper's framework and terminology. He questions Greenwell's distinction between "conventional" (no purposeful intelligence) and "unconventional" (purposeful intelligence) explanations, arguing that aircraft, hoaxes, and hallucinations involve purposeful intelligence. McCarthy also disputes Greenwell's equation of conventional explanations with IFOs, noting that Phil Klass, for example, often relies on hypothetical IFOs. He suggests that Greenwell should either acknowledge his focus on unconventional hypotheses or indicate that he is only interested in them. McCarthy also raises the possibility that Greenwell's paper is removed from its context in "The Encyclopedia of UFOs," which might provide a rationale for dismissing conventional hypotheses.

Comments by Aime Michel

Aime Michel discusses theories and hypotheses in the Popperian sense, requiring them to explain known phenomena and make falsifiable predictions. He argues that it is premature to propose hypotheses about UFOs because we do not know exactly what to explain and cannot yet elaborate falsifiable predictions. Michel proposes an alternative reasoning: based on calculations, the galaxy could be explored and settled within a million years, suggesting that intelligent species should have appeared. He questions why "The Club" (advanced intelligent species) is invisible. His "UFO Hypothesis" suggests that The Club is not invisible but part of our historical environment, and we have not yet identified it as such.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the challenges of UFO research, particularly the application of scientific methodology. There is a strong emphasis on the need for reliable data, the limitations of witness testimony, and the critical evaluation of various UFO theories. The contributors generally advocate for a more rigorous, evidence-based approach, often lamenting the lack of progress in the field due to premature theorizing and insufficient data. The editorial stance appears to be one of critical inquiry, urging caution and a return to fundamental scientific principles in the study of UFO phenomena.

This issue of UFO Universe, Volume 4, Issue 12, dated November 1979, focuses on "THE UFO PHENOMENON: WHAT ARE THE ANSWERS?" It presents a collection of commentaries from various experts on an article by J. Richard Greenwell, which presumably summarized different UFO hypotheses. The magazine features diverse perspectives on the nature of UFOs, the validity of various explanations, and the application of scientific methodology to the study of the phenomenon.

Comments by James W. Moseley

Moseley commends J. Richard Greenwell's article for its objective and concise presentation of UFO theories, acknowledging the extensive research involved. He anticipates that proponents of specific theories will likely feel their own pet theories have been short-changed. Moseley agrees with Greenwell's observation that fewer sightings might impress scientists more, suggesting that ufologists might be hindering their own cause by presenting too much data. He advocates for focusing efforts on proving just one single, irrefutable case, rather than accumulating numerous half-proven ones. Moseley expresses gratitude for being included among the "experts" and for Greenwell's thoughtful article.

Comments by James E. Oberg

Oberg critiques the classification of UFOs, suggesting that terms like 'hollow earth' and 'underwater' refer to locales rather than classifications of UFO nature or purpose. He proposes an expanded 'secret weapon' class, modified to 'secret mechanical technology,' with sub-classes based on origin (contemporary human/government, contemporary human/non-government, ancient human, native non-human) and also notes the omission of supernatural or divine manifestations as a theory. Oberg finds the External Terrestrial Hypothesis (ETH) weak when it belabors interstellar flight difficulties and dismisses local Solar System origins. He argues that the ETH's focus on 'they must exist out there' is a non-rational fallacy. He also suggests that ET agencies might refrain from overt contact while allowing 'glimpses' and slow acclimatization. Oberg dismisses the word 'theory' in the context of UFO speculations, deeming them non-disprovable and non-testable, thus not scientific. He posits that conventional explanations, involving misperceptions, misrecollections, imagination, hoaxes, and hallucinations, best explain the majority of UFO reports. He criticizes the UFO media for distorting and sensationalizing reports, even while ufologists benefit from this public belief.

Comments by John Rimmer

Rimmer finds value in Greenwell's summary, agreeing with the dismissal of Secret Weapon, Hollow Earth, Underwater Civilization, and Space Animal speculations. He notes that these are held by a small proportion of UFO investigators. Rimmer points out that Greenwell's arguments against the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH) are neatly summarized, though the ETH remains the majority view. He identifies confusion in Greenwell's treatment of 'Ultraterrestrail' and 'Psychic Projection' theories. Rimmer argues that Greenwell groups hypotheses into 'conventional' (no purposeful intelligence) and 'unconventional' (involving purposeful intelligence), which he finds problematic, as hoaxes involve purposeful intelligence and hallucinations involve intelligence, though their purposefulness is unclear. Rimmer believes Greenwell implies a definition of UFO as a physically real object, excluding phenomena that don't manifest physically. He suggests Greenwell interprets 'Psychic Projection' too literally, like a movie projector, rather than as an internal projection from the unconscious. Rimmer agrees that the phenomenon might be internal to the percipient, but Greenwell categorizes this as a hallucination. While acknowledging Greenwell's critique of parapsychological explanations, Rimmer concludes that Greenwell's analysis is limited by a narrow definition of the UFO phenomenon, viewing it primarily in physical terms and not fully considering internalized psychological factors.

Comments by Michael K. Schutz

Schutz agrees with Greenwell that the truth likely lies among the proposed hypotheses. He frames the issue as a multiple-choice test, suggesting "A and B, but not C" (conventional phenomena and unconventional hypotheses, but not necessarily all of them) as a potential answer. Schutz concurs with Greenwell's dismissal of several unconventional theories (secret weapons, hollow earth, underwater civilization, space animal, time-travel, ultra-terrestrial, psychic-projection). He argues that the psychic-projection argument misses the point: witnesses latch onto real, conventional phenomena and apply unconventional explanations. Schutz believes that conventional phenomena and the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) are the most plausible remaining explanations. He cites "Project Blue Book Special Report Number 14" (Condon Report), stating that 90-odd percent of UFO sightings have conventional explanations, with only 3.2% of "excellent quality unknowns" remaining after analysis. Schutz contends that the sheer volume of UFO reports, even high-strangeness and high-credibility cases, can paradoxically undermine the ETH. However, he counters this by suggesting that conventional and insufficient-information cases form the bulk of reports, and focusing on clear, close-approach, daylight sightings makes the phenomenon more manageable. He also uses the analogy of Paris attracting foreign visitors to argue that Earth's uniqueness and accessibility could explain a high volume of visitors. Schutz introduces "Extraterrestrial Pluralism," the idea of visitors from many worlds, as a plausible concept. He concludes that the volume of 'real' extraterrestrial traffic might be a small percentage of total sightings, and the perceived high traffic is understandable given Earth's nature and advanced civilizations' capabilities.

Comments by Robert Sheaffer

Sheaffer acknowledges Greenwell's comprehensive summary of unconventional UFO hypotheses but notes the omission of some of Jacques Vallee's more recent speculations. He comments on specific hypotheses: the 'hollow earth' theory, dating back to the mid-nineteenth century, and the claim of photographic evidence of 'polar holes' by Ray Palmer and Brinsley Le Poer Trency, which Sheaffer dismisses as misinterpretation of photographic effects. Sheaffer addresses the 'volume of traffic' objection to the ETH, arguing that if one accepts the ETH premise, it's reasonable to assume a few interstellar trips with extensive local travel. He refutes the fallacy of equating the number of sightings with the number of interstellar voyages. Sheaffer notes that many scientists are challenging the assumption of abundant intelligent life in the universe, citing astronomer Michael Hart. He criticizes Greenwell for omitting detailed discussion of conventional explanations for UFOs, conveying a misleading impression that conventional hypotheses are inadequate. Sheaffer argues that conventional explanations should be treated as the null hypothesis, and the primary task is to determine if a phenomenon distinct from conventional ones exists, rather than proving UFOs are extraterrestrial.

Comments by P.A. Sturrock

Sturrock addresses the question of whether it makes sense to formulate hypotheses concerning UFOs from a scientific viewpoint. He argues that it is indeed beneficial to formulate hypotheses and compare them with data, rather than waiting for a complete data base. He suggests that new cases should not be automatically excluded if there's a slight possibility of a hoax or misperception. Sturrock believes that the best use of available data comes from formulating hypotheses and comparing them. He uses Bayes' theorem as a fundamental tool for updating the assessment of a hypothesis in response to new evidence. Sturrock emphasizes that a scientist should not set initial probabilities of a hypothesis to zero or unity, as this implies a fixed belief that cannot be changed by evidence. He advocates for a structured approach where different individuals or teams handle case studies, cataloging evidence, and proposing/analyzing hypotheses, ensuring independence between data assessment and hypothesis evaluation. He views Greenwell's list of hypotheses as a valuable step towards a long-term scientific analysis of the UFO phenomenon.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the classification and explanation of UFO phenomena. There is a clear debate between proponents of conventional explanations (misperceptions, hoaxes, etc.) and various unconventional hypotheses, most notably the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH). Several commentators express skepticism towards certain fringe theories while acknowledging the need for rigorous scientific inquiry. The issue highlights the challenges of applying the scientific method to a subject often characterized by anecdotal evidence and subjective interpretations. The editorial stance appears to favor a cautious, evidence-based approach, with a strong emphasis on the importance of hypothesis formulation and testing, as exemplified by Sturrock's discussion of Bayes' theorem. There's a shared sentiment that while many hypotheses have been proposed, a definitive, scientifically validated explanation for the UFO phenomenon remains elusive.

This issue of ZETETIC SCHOLAR, identified by page number 99, features "COMMENTS BY DAVID W. SWIFT:" which serves as a commentary on an article by Richard Greenwell evaluating eight theories about UFOs. The commentary also includes extensive bibliographies on the topic of dowsing and a "RANDOM BIBLIOGRAPHY ON THE OCCULT AND THE PARANORMAL."

Commentary on UFO Theories

David W. Swift begins by commending Richard Greenwell's article as a helpful introduction for newcomers and a stimulating review for those familiar with the subject of UFOs. Swift uses the article as a springboard to reflect on the UFO situation as a whole. He notes that the large number of theories indicates the topic's vitality, even if not its reality. He expresses a sobering realization that after a third of a century since UFOs became widely known, their nature remains unknown, unlike other scientific advancements made during the same period, such as unlocking the genetic code or space exploration. Swift points out that despite attempts to explain UFOs through hoaxes, misidentifications, secret weapons, or interplanetary visitors, the mystery persists.

Swift observes that the existence of numerous theories, which he refers to as Greenwell's "Gallery of Grotesque Guesses," suggests a lack of a satisfactory explanation. He highlights that Greenwell's article points out flaws in all the theories presented. However, Swift notes that new theories continue to emerge. He discusses Jacques Vallee's ideas, particularly from his books "Passport to Magonia" and "Messengers of Deception," proposing a "Superterrestrial" or "Deception" theory. According to Vallee, a group of humans has developed a method for projecting mentally controlled images to manipulate public belief, potentially fostering irrational cults that undermine civilization's rational structure.

Vallee also suggests that traditional, space-and-time-oriented views of psychics hinder understanding. Instead, he proposes an associative model, similar to computer information systems, as more accurate. Swift quotes Vallee: "Time and space may be convenient notions for plotting the progress of a locomotive, but they are completely useless for locating information" and "If we live in the associative universe of the software scientist rather than the sequential universe of the spacetime physicist, then miracles are no longer irrational events."

Swift admits that while such speculations might have seemed absurd decades ago, he is now more willing to consider them, as no other theory adequately explains UFOs. He speculates that the truth about UFOs might be entirely unsuspected or a combination of existing theories. He laments that the number of serious contenders has not dwindled and attributes this, in part, to scientists' avoidance of the UFO problem, predicting continued growth in the field's theories until it is more closely examined.

Bibliographies

The issue also contains extensive bibliographical listings. One section is titled "BIBLIOGRAPHY OF BIBLIOGRAPHIES ON DOWSING*" compiled by George P. Hansen. This bibliography lists numerous books and articles related to dowsing, providing details such as authors, titles, publishers, dates, and brief descriptions of the content and scope of each entry. It includes works from various countries and covers aspects ranging from scientific investigations of magnetic fields and biophysical effects to historical accounts, folklore, and "how-to" guides.

Another section is titled "RANDOM BIBLIOGRAPHY ON THE OCCULT AND THE PARANORMAL." This extensive list, spanning multiple pages, includes academic articles, journal entries, and book chapters covering a wide array of topics within the occult and paranormal fields. Entries cover subjects such as the rationality of irrationalism, belief in the paranormal, astrology, ESP, witchcraft, spiritual churches, magnetism, cults, psychical research, time travel, UFOs, and various other phenomena. The entries are meticulously cited with authors, publication details, and sometimes brief annotations.

Future Issues and Support

An announcement indicates that J. Richard Greenwell's reply to his commentators will appear in the next issue of ZETETIC SCHOLAR. Future issues are advertised to include a dialogue on "The Crisis in Parapsychology," an analysis of psychic surgery, a report on magicians' attitudes towards psi, continued dialogues, annotated bibliographies, and surprises.

The publication appeals for reader support, emphasizing that ZS is a specialized publication for serious researchers and scholars, and its survival depends on continued support. Readers are encouraged to renew their subscriptions and promote the journal.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the persistent mystery of UFOs, the proliferation of theories attempting to explain them, and the sociological and psychological aspects of belief in the paranormal. The commentary by David W. Swift reflects a critical but open-minded stance towards UFO phenomena, acknowledging the lack of definitive answers while considering even unconventional theories. The extensive bibliographies underscore the journal's commitment to providing researchers with comprehensive resources on topics related to parapsychology, the occult, and anomalous phenomena. The editorial stance appears to be one of scholarly inquiry into subjects often on the fringes of mainstream science, encouraging rigorous examination and discussion.

This issue of ZS, identified as Volume 1, Issue 11, published in 1981, is primarily a scholarly journal focused on parapsychology and related anomalous phenomena. The content consists largely of academic references and a lengthy article by Ray Hyman responding to commentators on his paper titled "Pathological Science."

Reply to the Commentators on "Pathological Science" by Ray Hyman

Ray Hyman begins by expressing his initial surprise and astonishment at the reactions to his paper, "Pathological Science." He acknowledges that the fault for misunderstandings might lie partly with himself, due to the paper's awkwardness and ambiguity stemming from a last-minute change in objective prior to its delivery at the AAAS meetings.

Hyman clarifies that his original intention was to examine what Langmuir and others termed "pathological science." He notes that philosophers of science have struggled to find consistent criteria for distinguishing between accepted and rejected science. As a cognitive psychologist, he had intended to reconstruct the thought processes behind "pathological" claims to compare them with those behind "healthy" claims, finding little difference.

However, he dropped this plan for a half-hour talk, opting for a simpler approach relevant to a symposium on Science and Pseudoscience. He dismisses Langmuir's definition of "pathological science" as "the science of things that are not so" as useless, as much acceptable science could fit this description. He also points out that controversies arise in science for various reasons, not just due to "pathological" claims.

Hyman's first suggestion was that the pathology lies not in the truth value of the claims or their justification, but in the scientific community's reaction to them. He argues that the community's response is often out of keeping with its image of rationality and dispassion. His second suggestion was that extreme reactions to discredit radical claims can have negative consequences for orthodox science, potentially fostering the very "evils" it seeks to expunge.

He organizes his replies to commentators under general headings. Regarding his intentions, he states he was not urging open-mindedness for all claims but rather that when the scientific community challenges radical claims, it should do so according to its own standards of fair-play and criticism. He expresses concern that the discrediting procedure for some radical claims violates these canons of rationality and objectivity.

Hyman acknowledges that one negative consequence of discrediting is the loss of potential truth content in radical claims. He notes that while historians are increasingly examining the "deviant" interests of past scientists (like Kepler's mysticism or Newton's alchemy), these studies have had little impact on general education, partly because the discrediting process kept these interests from being fully aired during the scientists' lifetimes.

He addresses accusations of hypocrisy, particularly from critics like Rockwell, Braude, Cooter, and Mauskopf, who believe he advocates for impartial evaluation but actually seeks a less emotional way to dismiss embarrassing claims. Hyman clarifies that his purpose is not to advocate for general open-mindedness but for fair evaluation when claims are challenged.

In the section "My choice of terms and referents," Hyman tackles the criticism of his use of the term "pathological science." He admits that the term has negative connotations and that the distinction it implies is problematic, linking it to the "demarcation problem" in philosophy of science. He concedes that philosophers and historians have not found a consistent way to discriminate between science and pseudoscience. However, he argues that despite the lack of a clear boundary, a distinction can be made at the extremes between relatively good and bad science.

Hyman explains that he handled this matter clumsily in his paper and that many readers interpreted him as endorsing Langmuir's characterization. His intention was to identify cases by six "distinctive characteristics":
1. A scientist of acknowledged competence and accomplishments.
2. The scientist claims the existence of a bizarre or impossible phenomenon.
3. The scientific establishment ignores or attacks the claim.
4. The deviant scientist and supporters persist despite attacks.
5. The bizarre claim is discredited in the eyes of the scientific community.
6. The claim is banished from scientific literature and education.

He realizes this categorization needs elaboration, not claiming that such cases can be consistently isolated based on truth content, justifiability, or logic, but asserting that such cases do exist.

Hyman admits that the term "pathological" might be premature, as it's unclear if the non-rational discrediting process is a dramatic form of normal scientific practice or a qualitative break. He emphasizes that it is the scientific community that distinguishes between science allowed in the normal forum and that denied due process.

He defends his use of terms like "bizarre," "follies," and "failures," stating they reflect the scientific community's perception rather than his own judgment of truth value. He dismisses accusations of being a neo-Marxist for his critique of scientific objectivity, finding such ideological interpretations confusing.

In the section "My attitude towards anomalous and paranormal claims," Hyman addresses the criticism that he prejudges the validity of paranormal claims. He admits that while he believes Wallace's claim about a materialized sunflower was not rationally examined, he still stated he did not believe it and labeled it a "failure." He argues this is not inconsistent, as the burden of proof lies with those claiming paranormal phenomena, and repeatable evidence for phenomena like those attributed to D.D. Home has not been provided.

He reiterates that the truth value of rejected claims is not the point of his paper. Instead, he focuses on how the scientific community rejects claims out of hand, raising questions about the underlying reasons and the nature of scientific evaluation.

Supplements to Past Bibliographies

The issue also includes bibliographies on "The Lunar Effect" (ZS, #5 & Supplement in #6), listing articles on the moon's influence on seizure activity, electoral behavior, homicides, and police activity. It also includes a bibliography on "Phases of the Moon and Seizure Activity."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The primary theme of this issue is the critical examination of "pathological science" and the processes by which the scientific community evaluates and often rejects anomalous or paranormal claims. Ray Hyman's article advocates for a more rational and fair evaluation process, even for radical claims, while acknowledging the inherent difficulties in defining the boundaries of science. The editorial stance appears to be one of critical inquiry into scientific methodology and community behavior, rather than outright endorsement or dismissal of paranormal phenomena. The extensive bibliographies suggest a commitment to providing researchers with comprehensive resources on specific topics within the field of parapsychology.

This issue of "ZS Dialogues" presents a series of critical exchanges and replies among scholars concerning fundamental questions about the nature of scientific knowledge, the role of social factors in science, and the handling of anomalous or "pathological" claims. The discussions revolve around the work of scientists like Wallace and Crookes, the theories of Immanuel Velikovsky, and the field of parapsychology.

Commentary on the Social Determination of Scientific Knowledge

One section addresses the "failing to question the cultural specificity of modern scientific truth." The author acknowledges the powerful role social forces play in scientific practice and theory but argues that the exact nature of this role is an open empirical question, not settled by appeal to Marxist dogma. It is also unclear whether social determination precludes rationality and objectivity. The author notes that while the scientific community generally believes it operates rationally and value-free, this belief may be misguided. However, the author distinguishes this from "pathological science," where the community may abandon even the pretense of rationality.

The Forced Compartmentalization of Wallace's Orthodox Biology and Unorthodox Psychical Inquiries

This section tackles criticisms from Cooter and Mauskopf regarding the author's conclusion that Wallace's mind was fragmented into "orthodox and unorthodox scientific compartments." The author clarifies that this was not about a split personality but an objective fact of "forced compartmentalization." Scientists like Wallace and Crookes, whose claims were discredited, were denied regular scientific channels for argument. Wallace, for instance, had to discuss psychic matters in a different forum with different standards of proof, unlike his scientific work on new plants and natural selection. This difference in forums, the author argues, can lead to ideas being organized separately in memory, resulting in a form of dissociation.

The author emphasizes that scientific cognition is not solely an individual function but is heavily influenced by the "scientific marketplace" – the interchange with colleagues, students, rivals, and predecessors. Even solitary scientists are influenced by internalized versions of disciplinary matrices. The way hypotheses are formulated, research is designed, data is analyzed, and findings are presented are all colored by anticipated reactions from the scientific community.

When Wallace presented his scientific work, he received feedback within the existing scientific forum. However, his ideas on psychic matters lacked such a forum, forcing him into a less standardized, less homogeneous environment with different feedback mechanisms. The author suggests that this difference in cognitive organization could lead to a form of dissociation within the mind.

Joseph May Replies to Geoffrey Dean

Joseph May responds to Geoffrey Dean regarding J.E. Wood's "Sun, Moon and Standing Stones." May requests clarification on a specific figure ("0.05" degrees) quoted by Dean, asking for the page number to evaluate the claim in context. He also questions Dean's phrase "targets set by an undisturbed orbital geometry," seeking to know whose system of geometry is being referenced. May observes a tendency among critics of Velikovsky to declare specific items as conclusive evidence against his system and advises a more thorough and even-handed scrutiny before reaching conclusions.

Laurent Beauregard Comments on Ray Hyman

Laurent Beauregard comments on Ray Hyman's thesis that the scientific community should not react pathologically to "pathological science." Beauregard questions how one can know that discredited paranormal hypotheses have "deserved their fate" if the scientific community has not been rational enough to deal with them scientifically. He asks if Hyman can judge that yesterday's discredited hypotheses have deserved their fate in a logical/empirical sense. Beauregard suggests that a believer would find such a judgment question-begging. He also probes Hyman's distinction between different kinds of scientific "failures," suggesting that some may not be worth investigating while others offer learning opportunities.

Beauregard challenges Hyman's assertion that claims of psychic force by Wallace or Crookes have no chance of being true, asking for the logical justification. He questions whether these claims have ever received a fair, objective hearing. Beauregard argues that Hyman's thesis is not needed if such claims have already been fairly heard and dismissed, and if not, then Hyman is not justified in saying they do not deserve serious consideration.

Ray Hyman Replies to Laurent Beauregard

Ray Hyman acknowledges the questions raised by Beauregard regarding how to know if discredited paranormal hypotheses have "deserved their fate" if the scientific community has not been rational. Hyman states that his objective is not to determine if claims "deserved" their fate but to understand what causes the scientific community to engage in emotional, non-rational discrediting procedures. He seeks to identify features of anomalous claims that provoke such reactions, which might justify discrediting them, or alternatively, might be irrelevant to the problems currently considered important.

Hyman suggests a potential advantage for the scientific community in taking anomalous claims from accredited scientists seriously. He believes it would be worthwhile to pinpoint the ways in which these claims were deficient, which could help diagnose what went wrong and prevent future mistakes. If anomalous claims cannot be distinguished from more orthodox ones, it could reveal limitations in scientific cognition and reinforce the idea that irrational reasons might be behind considering certain problems legitimate.

Bradley Dowden Comments on Robert G. Jahn

Bradley Dowden expresses discomfort with Robert Jahn's advice to parapsychology researchers. Dowden argues that Jahn underestimates the importance of establishing the case for psychic phenomena and overestimates the value of speculative theories that conflict with established science. He also believes Jahn overestimates the attention parapsychology deserves. Dowden suggests that theory-building efforts should be hesitant to conflict with basic principles of contemporary science, such as causality and the mind-body relationship. He advocates for caution and the exploration of minor reforms before major ones. Dowden's second comment addresses the question of how to make the case for psychic phenomena. He argues that too much focus is placed on making the positive case, and the emphasis should be on falsification. Only after repeated attempts at falsification fail should theory-building be considered.

Dowden criticizes Jahn's defense of increased activity in parapsychology, noting that Jahn apologizes for low statistical yields by comparing them to other areas of science. Dowden argues this fails to appreciate the world-view compatibility criterion, as parapsychology claims data that requires rejecting basic scientific principles, unlike other sciences. He asserts that parapsychology needs to make a stronger case that its data is non-spurious before receiving encouragement. Dowden dismisses Jahn's comments about freedom of inquiry and the right to inquire, stating the significant question is "What are the promising lines of inquiry?"

Robert G. Jahn Replies to Bradley Dowden

Robert G. Jahn responds to Bradley Dowden, suggesting that Dowden is largely contending with himself and his own inaccurate presumptions of Jahn's opinions. Jahn agrees that there may be a legitimate quarrel regarding the "significant question" of freedom of inquiry. He affirms the need for advocates to provide solid proof, assess realistic validity, and have a "nose" for research. However, Jahn rejects the idea that a teacher has a "duty to steer his creative student away from (unprofitable new viewpoints)," calling it an inherently degenerative hierarchy of insight. He believes imposing such judgment is presumptuous and authoritarian, stifling the human consciousness's yearning for wisdom. Jahn concludes by posing the question, "Whose nose knows?"

David Morrison Replies to Joseph May and Leroy Ellenberger, and to C.J. Ransom

David Morrison addresses the Velikovsky debate, noting the passion and personal abuse involved. He criticizes pro-Velikovsky apologists, including Joseph May, for what he calls "dogmatic" criticism and for implying that scholarship requires suspending judgment even when evidence overwhelmingly argues against a hypothesis. Morrison, after years in the debate, claims he can discern growing inconsistencies between Velikovsky's theories and factual evidence in astronomy and geology. He points out May's confusion regarding timescales for Io, stating that a surface "less than a million years old" is consistent with volcanic alterations occurring on timescales as small as a few years. Morrison highlights that Voyager discoveries about Io show scientists were quick to revise preconceptions based on evidence, unlike the lack of evidence for a recently melted lunar surface. He asserts that data from the past two decades has consistently contradicted the basic hypotheses of "Worlds in Collision."

Morrison also objects to the criticism that he only cites pro-Velikovsky literature, clarifying that the point is not to ignore it but to verify its accuracy against primary sources. He states that May's article repeats misleading claims found in PENSEE and KRONOS and that had May checked, he would not have asserted a prima facie case for Velikovsky. Morrison agrees with May's arguments for open communication and debate but deems Velikovsky a poor example, as the issue has largely resolved itself.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue of "ZS Dialogues" revolve around the nature of scientific knowledge, the criteria for rationality and objectivity, and the appropriate methods for evaluating anomalous claims. There is a clear tension between those who emphasize the social and cultural construction of science and those who uphold more traditional views of empirical verification and falsification. The issue highlights the challenges faced by researchers in fields like parapsychology, where claims often fall outside mainstream scientific paradigms. The editorial stance appears to be one that encourages rigorous debate and critical examination of both established science and unconventional hypotheses, while also emphasizing the importance of scientific methodology and evidence-based reasoning.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, identified as issue #6 and published in 1980, focuses on critical analyses of controversial scientific and pseudoscientific claims, primarily concerning Immanuel Velikovsky's cosmological theories and the controversial field of remote viewing.

Critiques of Velikovsky's Theories

The issue begins with a critique of Ellenberger's letter, which is dismissed as lacking substance and relying on outdated calculations regarding the cooling of Venus. The author refutes Ellenberger's claims about electric discharges accelerating radio isotope decay, demanding evidence for such a 'fantastic claim.'

C.J. Ransom is addressed for expressing surprise at the author's comments, with the author asserting that Velikovsky supporters often fail to engage with mainstream scientific literature in astronomy and geology. The author acknowledges S.K. Vsekhsvyatskii's work on cometary orbits but notes its low repute within the scientific community due to a lack of plausible physical mechanisms and observational evidence. The author clarifies that Velikovsky's theory of Venus's origin involves a major disruption between Jupiter and Saturn, distinct from short-period comets.

A significant portion of the critique focuses on Velikovsky's predictions about the Moon. The author contrasts Velikovsky's claims of extensive heating, surface melting, intense radioactivity, seismic activity, and hydrocarbon deposits with current lunar scientific understanding. The Moon is described as a geologically dead, desiccated body with low radioactivity, minimal seismic activity, depleted volatiles, and an absence of organic material, except for that introduced by infalling meteors. The author cites J.E. Oberg's article in ASTRONOMY (July 1980) for further discussion on these points.

The conclusion drawn is that Velikovsky's theories are 'simply not tenable' in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence, which leads most scientists to ignore him. The author emphasizes that while new ideas deserve consideration, they must be supported by evidence, and if additional evidence fails to support them, they are set aside.

Comments on Remote Viewing Experiments

The majority of the issue is dedicated to commentaries on the paper by Edward W. Karnes, et al. (1980) titled "Failure to Replicate Remote-Viewing Using Psychic Subjects" (Zetetic Scholar #6, pp. 66-76). This paper reported a failed attempt to replicate the remote viewing experiments conducted by Targ and Puthoff.

Solomon E. Feldman's Comments:
Feldman, while skeptical, suggests that Karnes et al. missed the point of Tart's critique of their experimental design. He notes that while the study casts doubt on remote viewing, it suffered from shortcomings common to many Pro-ESP studies, particularly the possibility of inadvertent experimenter cueing. Feldman argues that the experimental design was 'loaded in one direction,' making it difficult to reject the null hypothesis or confirm the experimenter's hypothesis due to the many possibilities of cueing, cheating, etc. He calls for steps to rule out obvious alternative hypotheses.

Piet Hein Hoebens' Comments:
Hoebens expresses little surprise at the failed replication, suggesting that the procedure used by Karnes et al. left a loophole for 'unscrupulous psychics to manipulate the judging.' He points to two main issues: subjects self-selecting sender-receiver pairs and judges considering not only target sites but also sender descriptions and subjective experiences. Hoebens argues that this setup allows sender and receiver to arrange a code beforehand, leading to spurious hits. He also notes the sender's freedom to select details and interpret the environment, potentially fitting impressions to any site. He provides an example of agreeing on the element 'circle' to manipulate results. Hoebens also suggests the possibility of a third confederate creating pre-arranged scenes, further enabling manipulation. While he doesn't imply collusion by the specific center involved, he finds the idea of infiltration by a hoaxer irresistible.

Evan Harris Walker's Comments:
Walker expresses considerable interest but finds numerous departures from acceptable experimental design in Karnes et al.'s paper, which he believes were not adequately criticized by the reviewers. He labels these as "sins of commission" (altered procedures) and "sins of omission" (omitted procedures).

Walker criticizes the statistical procedures employed by Karnes et al. as invalid, citing the 'multiplicity of statistical analyses' performed on a single dataset. He argues that altering the procedure for statistical evaluation, such as rank-ordering only the best 8 matches out of 16, constitutes 'data selection' and opens results to criticism. He contends that this procedure, unlike Puthoff and Targ's complete rank-ordering, makes it impossible to ascertain the correct statistic, potentially yielding a corrected p-value of <0.05 due to data sifting.

Walker also criticizes the experimental design for not adequately addressing the possibility of experimenter bias or sensory leakage. He argues that the experiment should have been designed to detect information transfer, and that the failure to obtain significant results does not automatically prove the absence of psi, but rather points to a failure in experimental design.

He further critiques the use of 'psychic' subjects, stating that proper procedure requires treating subjects as novices unless experimental results objectively establish high scoring abilities. He believes Karnes et al.'s experiment should be considered an exhibition of results expected from inadequate techniques with naive subjects.

Walker's final criticism concerns the potential for bias in the judging process. He argues that the experiment should be designed so that experimenter or judge bias automatically yields results exhibiting this flaw. He suggests that Karnes et al.'s failure to replicate can be attributed to judges incorrectly pairing targets with transcripts, even if information exists. He contrasts this with Puthoff and Targ's experiment, where significant results indicated judges could detect information cues. Walker also criticizes J. Calkins for praising Karnes et al.'s design while castigating Puthoff and Targ for not running controls, when the latter's design did not require them due to known a priori null hypothesis probabilities.

Edward W. Karnes Replies to Feldman, Hoebens, and Walker:
Karnes et al. acknowledge the possibility of inadvertent or advertent experimenter cueing raised by Feldman and Hoebens, agreeing that positive results would not have provided definitive support for remote viewing. However, they argue that sensory leakage cannot account for the negative results obtained. They state they are conducting further investigations into judges' hypotheses and sensory leakage.

Regarding Hoebens' concern about purposeful cheating via self-selected sender-receiver pairs, Karnes et al. state that in previous studies (Karnes and Susman, 1979; Karnes, Ballou, Susman, and Swaroff, 1979), self-selection was not allowed, and rigorous procedures avoided fraud, yielding no support for remote viewing. They wanted to give experienced subjects a chance for success by allowing self-selection in this study.

Karnes et al. disagree with Walker's assessment of their experiment's design and execution. They dispute that the senders' records adversely affected judges' ability to evaluate data, stating each judge had limited materials. They also deny that their judges were biased, asserting they were solicited for open-minded interest and mostly unacquainted with the researchers. They suggest Walker read Marks and Kammann (1980) regarding bias possibilities in Puthoff and Targ's experiments, implying such issues were absent in their own.

Karnes et al. defend their statistical procedures as 'optimum, standard, and few in number,' involving a z test for proportions and a Student's t test, plus a t test and F test for feedback efficacy. They dismiss Walker's criticism of 'sifting' data, stating judges sifted protocols but experimenters did not select data. They again refer to Marks and Kammann (1980) regarding experimenter data selection in other studies. They conclude that their experiment did not involve data selection by experimenters.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are skepticism towards unconventional scientific claims and a strong emphasis on rigorous experimental methodology and statistical validity. The editorial stance appears to favor a critical, evidence-based approach, particularly in parapsychology and cosmology. The critiques of Velikovsky highlight the importance of aligning theories with established scientific evidence, while the extensive discussion on remote viewing underscores the challenges of conducting replicable experiments and the need to guard against methodological flaws, bias, and statistical manipulation.

This issue of the Zetetic Scholar, dated 1980 and identified as issue number 6, is a collection of scholarly articles and replies concerning various topics within parapsychology, including remote viewing, astrology, and the nature of evidence.

Article: Walker and Statistical Analysis of Remote Viewing

The first section critiques a researcher named Walker's interpretation of remote viewing experiments. The author challenges Walker's statistical analysis, particularly regarding the a priori probability of a 'hit' in judging procedures. The author points out that the procedure used (identifying 8 protocols out of 16) had an a priori probability of 0.50, whereas Walker's proposed method would yield probabilities of 0.25 or 0.125. Furthermore, the author dismisses Walker's criticism about subjects not being screened, citing Puthoff and Targ (1978) who state that successful remote viewing experiments have been conducted with participants who had no prior experience, and that they cannot identify individuals who have not succeeded to their own satisfaction. The author also takes issue with Walker equating the significance of remote viewing results to 'bits of information,' finding the equation unclear and unsupported. The author concludes by noting that while the null hypothesis cannot be accepted, the tenability of the null hypothesis in their studies is enhanced by the fact that no statistical analysis reliably supported a remote viewing hypothesis, with approximately half of the analyses showing support and the other half showing the opposite direction.

References

A list of references is provided, citing works by Dunne & Bisaha, Karnes & Susman, Karnes et al., Marks & Kammann, Targ & Puthoff, and Tart.

Christopher Scott Replies to John Beloff and Sybo Schouten (ZS, #6)

Christopher Scott addresses a controversy involving John Beloff and Sybo Schouten, primarily concerning the interpretation of experimental evidence for psi (parapsychological phenomena). Scott reiterates his argument that evidence for psi is historical and based on unrepeatable experiments, thus requiring careful evaluation of experimental reports for potential distortions or inaccuracies. He notes that Beloff and Schouten did not directly address this point in their rejoinders. Scott refutes Beloff's claim that he (Scott) rebuked Beloff for claiming his experiments represented an 'overwhelming case for accepting the reality of psi,' stating that such words do not appear in his paper. Scott also clarifies that his view is not that psi is impossible but rather that the emphasis should be on uncertainty and that alternative normal explanations should be considered.

Scott then turns to Sybo Schouten's arguments, illustrating the difficulties encountered when evidence relies solely on experimental reports. He discusses the Brugmans experimental procedure, noting a potential defect in marking the start of a trial, which could allow for biased recording. Schouten's reply that the trial onset was signaled by a hammer strike is questioned, as this information is not from contemporary reports but from a later article by Carington. Scott suggests that the hammer might have signaled the start of the session, not the trial, and that the report does not explicitly rule out the possibility of no signal at all, which would enhance the scope for biased recording.

Crucially, Scott examines how the subject indicated their guess. The original Brugmans report (1922) is silent on this, but a later report (1923) mentions tapping twice with a finger. Scott speculates this might be a mistake, and that if the signal was 'pressing down,' it could lead to biased recording. He highlights that the double-tap signal appears in the third report, three years after the experiments, contradicting the earliest report. Scott also addresses Schouten's argument that there was no significant difference in scoring rates when experimenters acted as agents. Scott suggests this only makes sense if the agent was the recorder, and that the wording of reports leaves open the possibility that one experimenter always acted as recorder and knew the target.

Scott further analyzes the Brugmans experiment by questioning the relevance of pooling all 24 sessions (589 trials) when only the first seven (187 trials) have a contemporary report. He argues that the finding of similar scoring rates across agents is based on this full analysis, potentially swamping differences noted in the initial reports. Scott also examines Schouten's argument about the deficiency of near misses. Scott proposes alternative interpretations, including that biased misrecording arose from misinterpreting the subject's response signal or that the deficiency of near misses was compensated by an excess of near misses due to the same factor causing hits.

Scott summarizes four possible defects in the Brugmans setup: the recorder knowing the target, unclear trial start signals, unclear response signals, and subjective classification of results. He proposes a non-psi hypothesis that the recorder knew the target and exploited ambiguities in the signals. He concludes that a research with such defects does not merit the description 'fundamentally sound.'

John Beloff Replies to Christopher Scott's Reply to Beloff and Sybo Schouten

John Beloff responds to Christopher Scott, stating that they are in agreement that parapsychological evidence depends on report reliability and that alternative normal explanations are always possible. However, Beloff believes they differ in their judgment of the plausibility of the psi hypothesis, with Beloff accepting it more readily than Scott, who seems to prioritize normal explanations. Beloff clarifies that he did not accuse Scott of a 'leap of faith' but rather of implying a rebuke for unwarranted conclusions. He expresses confusion over Scott's accusation of 'gross errors or radical misinterpretation of the facts.'

Beloff then draws attention to a specific aspect of the Brugmans experiment that he finds harder to reconcile with Scott's 'misrecording' hypothesis: the claim of a significant improvement in scoring rate after the subject consumed alcohol. Beloff argues that if misrecording were the sole explanation, alcohol consumption by the subject should not affect the observer's scoring. This leads Beloff to suggest that Scott would have to suppose the observer deliberately cheated, which he considers a last resort for skeptics. Beloff also mentions other differential effects in the data, such as a significant excess of direct hits for shorter response times, which are also puzzling under Scott's hypothesis.

Joseph Agassi Replies to Andreas N. Maris van Blaaderen Re "Superstition" (ZS #6 and 3/4)

Joseph Agassi discusses the sociological and anthropological tradition of taking alien beliefs, particularly superstition, seriously. He relates superstition to primitive sociology and the influence of social class and career opportunities. Agassi agrees with the idea that horoscopes correlate with high social class or incentives for upward mobility. He expresses distress at being ascribed the view that only one item of certain knowledge exists: that we are all ignorant. Agassi clarifies that he suggested seeking certainty is less important than engaging in Socratic dialogue, and his sole advice is to 'learn to live in ignorance since it is unavoidable.'

Agassi critiques his commentator's interpretation of his review of 'Recent Advances in Astrology.' He states that science is often presented as a confused pursuit of certainty, while superstition is an alternative method for seeking certainty. Scientists test their views, while the superstitious seek tests that confirm their existing views. Agassi notes that this leads to misunderstandings between scientists and the superstitious.

Geoffrey Dean Adds to Andreas N. Maris van Blaaderen's Statements on Astrology (ZS #6)

Geoffrey Dean discusses astrology, distinguishing between popular and serious astrology, and considering astrology as a potential paranormal phenomenon. He notes that popular astrology, widely seen in mass media, is debunked by scientists and serious astrologers. Dean agrees with the distress over popular belief in astrological determinism but argues that criticisms of popular astrology are not relevant to how serious astrologers use it. In a typical consultation, astrologers use a client's birth chart to provide insights into everyday concerns, and clients often find meaning in the chart's indications. Dean cites a psychiatrist, Dr. Edward Askren, who found astrology helpful as a diagnostic tool, though not a treatment. Dean cautions that such perceived results could be due to non-astrological factors like Barnum effects or placebo effects, and that proper studies are needed to determine the genuine effects of astrology.

Dean suggests that the explanation for astrology's perceived effectiveness is unknown due to a lack of proper studies. He proposes that critics should focus on counseling and compare the helpfulness of astrologers to other therapists. Dean mentions Hyman's test for palmistry, suggesting a similar test for astrology where readings are given opposite to what the chart indicates, and if they are still acceptable, it would be telling. He emphasizes the need for specific, non-Barnum-like readings and personality-tested subjects.

Regarding astrology as a paranormal phenomenon, Dean suggests it shares a theme with UFOs, Big Feet, and synchronistic events: they seem to work for some people some of the time but lack hard evidence. He proposes that astrology might be a manifestation of the unconscious or collective unconscious, where individuals unconsciously apprehend planetary positions and organize their lives accordingly. Dean suggests that people for whom astrology works might also experience UFOs or precognitive dreams. He highlights Gauquelin's Mars Effect as the only reliably established astrological effect, suggesting it supports his hypothesis and offers a possible solution to its mystery.

Dean concludes by suggesting that astrology could introduce a much-needed element of on-demand testability into the paranormal mix.

Jon Beckjord Responds to Robin Ridington Re Sasquatch "Photos" (ZS #6)

Jon Beckjord responds to Robin Ridington's objections to his evidence for the existence of Sasquatches. Beckjord admits it is unfair to expect agreement without Ridington seeing the photographic evidence. He acknowledges that Ridington's skepticism is understandable since he has only seen drawings from the photos. Beckjord invites Ridington to visit him in Seattle to view the photos directly, noting that most were taken after the UBC Conference in 1978 and Ridington has had little chance to see them. He offers Ridington the chance to join a distinguished group of people who have seen them.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical evaluation of evidence in parapsychology, the methodological rigor of experiments, and the distinction between paranormal claims and alternative explanations. The editorial stance appears to be one of skepticism towards unsubstantiated claims, emphasizing the need for robust scientific methodology, statistical validity, and careful consideration of potential flaws and alternative interpretations. There is a clear engagement with ongoing debates within the parapsychological community, as evidenced by the multiple replies and rejoinders on specific experimental cases and theoretical issues. The inclusion of discussions on astrology and Sasquatch broadens the scope to include other areas of fringe science and unexplained phenomena, all approached with a critical and analytical lens.

This issue of The Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 5, Number 3, published in Spring 1981, features a cover headline and lead article on "SASQUATCH: THE MYTH AND THE EVIDENCE." The magazine, priced at $3.00, is published by The Skeptical Inquirer and has an ISSN of 0194-6710.

Sasquatch: The Myth and the Evidence

The issue opens with a discussion of Sasquatch evidence, referencing photos and expert opinions. Robert Sheaffer, a skeptic, and Kendrick Frazier of The Skeptical Inquirer have viewed photos and admitted to seeing figures, though not yet definitively identifying them as Sasquatch. Four off-duty Army photo-interpreters, consulted again, stated they could see "apes," "monkeys," "ape faces," "a gorilla," "gorillas," "a cat-like face," "a dog," "dog-like animals," and "something there that we can't explain away." The author argues that if scientists can see these animals in photos, it indicates something significant for science, even if solid evidence like bones is lacking. The author suggests continuing to seek methods to measure this phenomenon and criticizes skeptics like Robin Ridington for not engaging in field research or fully examining the Patterson Bigfoot Film. An invitation is extended to Ridington and colleagues to visit and examine the materials.

Book Reviews

The issue includes several book reviews:

"Para Psi und Pseudo: Parapsychologie und die Wissenschaft von der Täuschung" by Lutz Müller

Reviewed by Piet Hein Hoebens, this book is described as a revised and enlarged version of Müller's doctoral thesis on "parapsychology and the science of deception." Müller, a psychologist and magician, views the history of psychical research as a confrontation with trickery and fraud, advocating for cooperation between parapsychologists and magicians. He criticizes the naive belief that genuine paranormal phenomena can be recognized by their self-validating genuineness, asserting that perfect deception is indistinguishable from the real article. Müller proposes a "deception analysis" to inspect experimental procedures for the "degree of freedom" they allow subjects, suggesting that scientists are ill-equipped for this without the assistance of experienced magicians. The review notes Müller's reluctance to fully critique the parapsychological world he was part of and expresses disappointment that the book does not discuss poltergeists or Müller's own experiences at the Freiburg institute. A poll of German magicians suggests they are not as hostile to psi as assumed, with a majority believing Geller's feats were tricks but a significant portion thinking psi is a real phenomenon. Müller also discusses "cheating" (including self-deception) as a vital ingredient of human psychology.

"Messengers of Deception: UFO Contacts and Cults" by Jacques Vallee

Reviewed by J. Richard Greenwell, this book is an attempt by Vallee to consolidate his thoughts on UFOs, influenced by a retired intelligence community member named "Major Murphy." Vallee proposes three scenarios: 1) A sophisticated British wartime intelligence group created to simulate extraterrestrial invasions to unify mankind; 2) "Esoteric intervention" by an occult group manipulating belief in UFOs; and 3) The "control-system" hypothesis, where UFOs represent a manifestation of a reality transcending physics, manipulated by advanced beings. Vallee believes the contactee movement is stimulated by these groups and could destroy rationality. The review points out factual errors in the book, such as misrepresenting Air Force Regulation 80-17 and the nature of the Center for Democratic Studies. The reviewer notes that Vallee indiscriminately blends alleged contactee events with alleged UFO abductions, ignoring the distinction.

"Guardians of the Universe?" by Ronald Story

Reviewed by Morris Goran, this book is essentially a revised version of Story's earlier work, "The Space-Gods Revealed," critiquing the ancient astronaut idea. The review notes that the book criticizes Robert K.G. Temple's "The Sirius Mystery" and includes new photographs. However, the reviewer finds that "in-depth" analysis of predecessors is limited and that the work of Alexander Thom is missing from the bibliography. The review also mentions that Professor Donald Menzel is characterized as "overly emotional." The book advocates the UFO phenomenon, with Chapter 14 titled "UFOs: A Genuine Mystery." The review concludes that both UFO and ancient astronaut concepts are persistent and not likely to disappear.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The overarching theme of this issue is the critical examination of paranormal claims, particularly Sasquatch and UFO phenomena, through a skeptical lens. The magazine emphasizes the importance of rigorous evidence, scientific methodology, and the analysis of deception. The reviews highlight the authors' attempts to explain these phenomena through psychological manipulation, intelligence operations, or as products of human belief systems, rather than accepting them at face value. The editorial stance is clearly one of promoting critical thinking and questioning extraordinary claims, encouraging readers to distinguish between genuine evidence and pseudoscience.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, dated 1980, focuses on a comprehensive review of recent books under the heading "BOOKS BRIEFLY NOTED." The section provides concise summaries and critical annotations, often by Marcello Truzzi, for a wide array of publications related to paranormal phenomena, fringe science, and anomalous topics.

Book Reviews

The "Books Briefly Noted" section covers a diverse range of subjects:

• Mesmerism: A Translation of the Original Scientific and Medical Writings of F.A. Mesmer by George Bloch is recommended as a welcome addition to hypnosis literature.
• Ancient Egyptian Magic by Bob Brier is described as an excellent popular introduction.
• Beyond the Four Dimensions: Reconciling Physics, Parapsychology and UFOs by Karl Brunstein is noted as a fascinating mixture of ideas, including theological, by a physicist exploring a fifth-dimensional theory.
• The Mind-Body Problem: A Psychobiological Approach by Mario Runge is highlighted as an important new philosophical analysis, instructional even for those who disagree with the author.
• Ancient Wisdom Revived: A History of the Theosophical Movement by Bruce F. Campbell is called an impressive scholarly work indispensable to those interested in the movement.
• Is There Intelligent Life on Earth? by Jack Catran attempts to "expose the myth of extraterrestrial intelligence" and criticizes the free enterprise system, proposing a technocratic future.
• The Avesbury Circle by Michael Dames is described as a controversial but fascinating interpretive attempt to reveal the collective purposes of the Neolithic achievement.
• Dojo: Magic and Exorcism in Modern Japan by Winston Davis is a study of Sukyo Mahikari, an exorcistic sect, offering sociological implications for theories of magic and religion.
• The Don Juan Papers: Further Castaneda Controversies edited by Richard de Mille is a remarkable sequel to a previous expose, destroying the Don Juan myth and serving as a documentary history of the controversy.
• Hypothesis on the UFO Origin by Maurice G. de San is a speculative but intelligent consideration of extraterrestrial origins of UFOs resulting from supernovae explosions.
• A Geo-Bibliography of Anomalies: Primary Access to Observations of UFOs, Ghosts, and Other Mysterious Phenomena by George M. Eberhart is a massive, geographically arranged compendium of over 20,000 references, though its index arrangement is noted as potentially inconvenient.
• Space by Anthony Feldman is a lavishly illustrated survey of astronomical knowledge and lore, including UFOs and exobiology, suitable for a juvenile reader.
• Predictions by Joe Fisher and Peter Commins is an entertaining, though not very discriminating, look at predictions.
• Science and Anti-Science by Morris Goran is an exceptional work dispelling myths about the anti-science movement and internal conflicts within science.
• The Future of Science by Morris Goran is a refreshing work upholding science while recognizing its human character.
• The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History by Stephen Jay Gould includes essays and new conclusions about the Piltdown Man hoax.
• The Book of Time edited by John Grant and Colin Wilson is an interdisciplinary collection of papers on man's relationship with time, with Colin Wilson's essay "Time in Disarray" of interest to paranormal researchers.
• American Folk Medicine edited by Wayland Hand is a collection of scholarly essays on topics ranging from "Miraculous Restoration of Lost Body Parts" to "Birthmarks and Psychic Imprinting."
• The Unicorn by Nancy Hathaway is a beautifully illustrated book with an annotated bibliography.
• The True History of the Elephant Man by Michael Howell and Peter Ford recounts the extraordinary story of Joseph Merrick.
• Psi and the Mind: An Information Processing Approach by H.J. Irwin is a significant work attempting to make sense of parapsychology data using information theory.
• Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty by Morris Kline is an important history of recent mathematical revolutions, with implications for positivism.
• Voodoo Heritage by Michael S. Laguerre systematically presents the oral traditions of Voodoo songs and rituals.
• "An Account of a Meeting with Denizens of Another World," 1871 edited by David Langford examines a document claiming extraterrestrial contact, possibly a hoax.
• The Complete Enochian Dictionary by Donald C. Laycock is presented as the most comprehensive work available on the Enochian language.
• Observations of Large Unidentified Marine Animals in British Columbia and Adjacent Waters by Paul H. LeBlond and John Silbert is an important analysis of reported sightings.
• Searching for Hidden Animals: An Inquiry into Zoological Mysteries by Roy P. Mackal is an introduction to cryptozoology.
• The Artist's Airbrush Manual by Clement Merten is a technical manual that may be of interest for its discussions on photographic retouching, relevant to the use of "doctored" photographs in evidence.
• Stars and Rumours of Stars: Reports of the Paranormal in the Welsh Religious Revival, 1904-5 by Kevin and Sue McClure is a study of alleged lights phenomena, of interest to UFO historians.
• The Psychology of Transcendence by Andrew Neher is a fair-minded, constructive, and critical work demonstrating a positive but skeptical approach.
• Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcoming of Social Judgement by Richard Nisbett and Lee Ross is a survey in cognitive psychology relevant to issues discussed in ZS.
• Women, Androgynes, and Other Mythical Beasts by Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty is a study of sexual metaphors and animal symbols in Indian mythology.
• The Craft of Magic by Charles J. Pecor is an introductory handbook for magicians, with a worthwhile chapter on performance.
• Mermaids by Beatrice Philpotts is a collection of paintings and illustrations with an accompanying text and bibliography.
• The Newer Spiritualism by Frank Podmore is a reprint of a 1910 book, offering a skeptical approach to early investigations into mediumship.
• Flim Flam: The Truth about Unicorns, Parapsychology and Other Delusions by James Bandi is described as arrogant and dogmatic but containing valuable material, particularly on psi research at SRI.
• Is It True What They Say About Edgar Cayce? by Lytle W. Robinson is a balanced attempt to examine the work of Edgar Cayce.
• Manual of Practical Cabalah and Gestalt Mysticism by Albert L. Schutz is described by its title.
• Occultism Update #22 edited by Leslie Shepard is a supplement to the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, providing new entries and corrections.
• Witchcraft in the Southwest: Spanish and Indian Supernaturalism on the Rio Grande by Marc Simmons is a popular survey based on ethnohistorical and anthropological sources.
• Secrecy: A Cross-Cultural Perspective edited by Stanton K. Tefft is a sociological work relevant to secret societies and potentially to government stances on UFOs.
• Biometeorology: The Impact of the Weather and Climate on Humans and Their Environment by S.W. Tromp is an analytic and empirical survey.
• The Frankenstein Diaries edited by Rev. Hubert Venables is a spoof about the creator and creation of the monster.
• The Psychic Experiment Book by William Jon Watkins is for entertainment rather than serious experiments but has some good features.
• Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World by Simon Welfare and John Fairley surveys exotic claims from sea serpents to UFOs.
• Close Encounters; A Better Explanation by Clifford Wilson and John Weldon presents a fundamentalist Christian approach with some interesting data.
• War of the Chariots by Clifford Wilson is a debate between a Christian archaeologist and von Däniken.

Back Issues and Subscription Information

The issue also details the contents of previous Zetetic Scholar back issues, including those on "Skepticism, Science and the Paranormal," "Anomalies: a Bibliographic Introduction," "Close Encounters with Canid Communications," "Attitudes of College Professors toward Extra-Sensory Perception," and "Psychic Research: New Dimensions or Old Delusions?" Subscription rates are provided: $12 for individuals (U.S. and Canada) and $18 for libraries, institutions, and foreign subscribers. All correspondence should be sent to the Department of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout the "Books Briefly Noted" section is the critical examination of paranormal claims, fringe science, and anomalous phenomena. The inclusion of annotations by Marcello Truzzi, a known critic of pseudoscience, suggests an editorial stance that favors skepticism and rigorous scientific inquiry, even when discussing topics like UFOs, parapsychology, and unexplained phenomena. The magazine aims to provide readers with a balanced perspective, highlighting both the potential value and the critical shortcomings of various works in these fields.